Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of natural hedges to deter primates We found no evidence for the effects of using natural hedges to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas and raiding crops on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1437Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:24:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of unpalatable buffer crops We found no evidence for the effects of using unpalatable buffer crops to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1438Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use nets to keep primates out of fruit trees One controlled, replicated, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that areas where nets were used to protect crop trees, crop-raiding by orangutans was reduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1442Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:16:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats (e.g. barking dogs, explosions, gunshots) We found no evidence for the effects of using loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats to crop-raiding primates on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1446Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:24:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting One site comparison in Sierra Leone found that primate densities were higher in forest that had been logged at low intensity than in a forest logged at high intensity. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that the number of lemurs increased following selective logging. One site comparison study in Uganda found that primate densities were similar in forest that had been logged at low intensity and forest logged at high intensity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:26:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:29:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:33:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat We found no evidence for the effects of working inward from barriers or boundaries to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1498Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:51:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use We found no evidence for the effects of using prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1516https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1516Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:16:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and bacterial diseases to primates One study in Uganda found that a confiscated young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being handled by caretakers wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and visitors wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:58:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. We found no evidence for the effects of wearing gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:41:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +0100