Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land We found no evidence for the effects of creating natural habitat islands within agricultural land 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by primates We found no evidence for the effects of compensating farmers for produce loss caused by 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1428https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1428Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:49:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify farms and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying farms and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ to sell at a premium 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1434https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1434Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:19:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to primates) We found no evidence for the effects of changing the crop to a less palatable crop 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1439https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1439Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:47:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Chase crop raiding primates using dogs We found no evidence for the effects of using dogs to chase crop raiding primates away 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1444https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1444Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:19:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify mines and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ (e.g. ape-friendly cellular phones) We found no evidence for the effects of certifying mines and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1454https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1454Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration routes We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding building roads in key habitat or migration routes 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1461https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1461Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:38:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols Two studies in Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after implementing regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. One study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla populations declined after conducting regular anti-poaching patrols. A review on gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over a 21 month period when the number of guards carrying out anti-poaching patrols increased, alongside other interventions. One study in Ghana found a reduction in illegal primate hunting activities following conducting regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear open patches in the forest We found no evidence for the effects of clearing open patches in the forest 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1490https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1490Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:37:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1493https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1493Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree species for primates One before-and-after study in Belize found that a black howler monkey population increased over 13 years after trees important for food for the species were preserved, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:45:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete We found no evidence for the effects of closing non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1496https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1496Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:48:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying forest concessions and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1500https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1500Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:55:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences to keep humans out We found no evidence for the effects of building fences to keep humans out 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1503https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1503Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:01:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We found no evidence for the effects of coppicing trees 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1513https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1513Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:08:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling inter-specific competition for food through exclusion or translocation 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1520https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1520Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:31:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling habitat-altering mammals through exclusion or translocation 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1532https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1532Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:29:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control 'reservoir' species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources We found no evidence for the effects of controlling ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1552https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1552Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:12:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/translocating them One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that most reintroduced black lion tamarins that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over four months. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that 90% of reintroduced Müller's Bornean gibbons did not survive despite undergoing veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. Two studies, including one controlled, in Malaysia and Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that underwent veterinary screens, along with other interventions, survived translocation and the first three months post-translocation. Four studies, including three before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republilc of Congo and Guinea found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-5 years. One before and after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Belize, French Guiana, Madagascar, Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived at least four months or increased in population size. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in French Guiana, Madagascar, South Africa and Vietnam found that most reintroduced or translocated primates were assumed to have died post-release despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Kenya found that a population of translocated olive baboons were still surviving 16 years after translocation when veterinary screens were applied alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding contact between wild primates and human-raised 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1555https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1555Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:55:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before introduction to the wild Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that reintroduced primate populations were smaller after 12-17 months and one study in Belize found primate populations increased five years after allowing individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, alongside other interventions. One study found that a reintroduced population of black howler monkeys had a birth rate of 20% after they were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, Madagascar, Malaysia, French Guiana, South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to 12 years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Four studies in Belize, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa found that the majority of primates survived for at least four to 12 months. One study in Vietnam found that half of reintroduced pygmy slow lorises survived for at least two months. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for nine months to four years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Three studies in Liberia and the Congo found that a majority of chimpanzees survived for at least three to five years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. A study in Indonesia found that Sumatran orangutans that were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction performed less well than individuals that were directly released into the forest, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that after being allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions a pair of introduced Bornean agile gibbons had a similar diet to wild gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:08:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat We found no evidence for the effects of creating buffer zones around protected primate 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and reared in cages One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins that were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not survive over seven years or had a higher mortality than wild-born tamarins. One controlled study in French Guiana found that more squirrel monkeys which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, died or were returned to captivity post-reintroduction compared to wild-born monkeys. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not overlap with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: limited free-ranging experience One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, died over five years. One before-and-after and site comparison and one before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, survived over a period of between nine months and four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:36:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and raised in a free-ranging environment One before-and-after study in Brazil found that only two out of three reintroduced black lion tamarins survived over four months, despite being raised in a free-ranging environment, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs that were born and raised in a free-ranging environment alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:44:59 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust