The what and where of primate field research may be failing primate conservation

Abstract

With approximately 30% of nonhuman primate species listed as critically endangered, the window of opportunity to conserve primates is closing fast. In this article, we focus on the degree to which publications in field primatology are biased in favor of particular taxa and field sites. We examined more than 29,000 peer‐reviewed articles and identified 876 field visits to 349 field sites. We found a highly clumped distribution by site and species. We also examined publication ethical statements and the extent to which they acknowledged local human communities (<5%). Due to a lack of consistency across publications, we provide recommendations for improving ethical statements and for evaluating research impact. Given the plight of primate biodiversity, these results suggest broader coverage of primate species and geographies, as well as more attention to the local human communities whose support is necessary if the intent is to have primate species in the wild in the 22nd century.

Are social media reports useful for assessing small ape occurrence? A pilot study from Peninsular Malaysia

“…Education and familiarity with social media may be another reason that more observations were reported from urban areas compared with rural areas as well as generally better internet access and cell phone coverage in more developed areas. The pattern of observations found here is opposite the usual pattern of research by primate specialists (Bezanson & McNamara, 2019), whose efforts are focused in a relatively small number of sites, usually in large protected areas, which suggests that social media reports may be a useful complement to research by specialists.…”

“…Do not rely heavily on any single report or reporter Social media reports are available from many sites. Scientific research is concentrated in relatively few sites, usually in protected areas less affected by human presence (Bezanson & McNamara, 2019), so citizen scientist reports may provide useful supplementary data…”

Factors influencing taxonomic unevenness in scientific research: A mixed-methods case study of non-human primate genomic sequence data generation

“…The same consideration likely applies to other taxonomic groups other than primates. That is, even in the absence of model organisms, widely apparent biases for particular field sites (29), geographic regions (30), habitat types (31), species "charisma" (5), and societal preferences (32) likely impact taxonomic choices in successive research planning processes.…”

Distinguished primatologist address—moving from advocacy to activism: Changing views of primate field research and conservation over the past 40 years

“…In marked contrast, between 2010 and 2018, an average of 213 ± 17 articles on primate conservation were published annually, and fully 18.4% of the articles in the American Journal of Primatology and 25.4% of the articles published in the International Journal of Primatology had a conservation focus (Figure ). Without doubt, the emphasis of field primatology has changed markedly over the past 10 years in prioritizing conservation (see also Bezanson & McNamara, ). Given that for several primate species we now have amassed robust demographic and ecological datasets from which to generate fact‐based conservation solutions, we need to build on the lessons learned from long‐term and successful conservation initiatives to actively confront the primate extinction crisis (Horwich, Lyon, & Bose, , Horwich, Lyon, Bose, & Jones, ; Linder & Oats, ; Strier, ; Wright, ; Wright & Andriamihaja, ).…”