Funding for global biodiversity conservation, already a finite commodity, has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (Gibbons et al., 2022). Despite trillions of USD mobilized in pandemic economic recovery, government resources to address the biodiversity and climate crises remain constrained, even though increased investment is urgently required (Mallapaty et al., 2022). In this context, governments and other funding agencies should adopt policies that must consider not just the quantum of biodiversity and climate finance mobilized, but also their conservation return on investment (CROI): a quantitative, and sometimes also qualitative, conservation outcome measured against the fiscal cost of providing that outcome (Cho et al., 2019).
Thousands of field research stations worldwide are at the frontline of biodiversity conservation, supporting significant advances in conservation, education, and research. Despite monitoring and reporting on critical ecosystem services, their value to national and international biodiversity conservation efforts is often not recognized (Eppley et al., 2022; NRC, 2014; Wyman et al., 2009). This lack of recognition of field stations is evidenced by reduced investment and funding cuts in the conservation sector since the COVID-19 pandemic began (Gibbons et al., 2022; Likens & Wagner, 2021; McCleery et al., 2020).
Field stations may be susceptible to funding cuts because the CROI of these entities is not well-understood or documented, and therefore difficult to assess. For example, conservation and research initiatives, particularly at field stations, are usually interdisciplinary, yielding a broad array of direct and indirect knowledge and data benefits that are often only realized over long time scales, making CROI multifaceted and more complex than typical cost–benefit analyses can capture (Boyd et al., 2015; Field & Elphick, 2019; Kujala et al., 2018). CROI analyses often focus on the cost of protecting a given, measurable area (Kujala et al., 2018), yet field stations in these areas enact a multiplicity of qualitative initiatives, including research, education, and public engagement, that have long-term objectives and little immediately measurable cost–benefit value (Tydecks et al., 2016). It is this foundation of difficult-to-quantify conservation outcomes that field stations need to use to demonstrate their true benefit-to-cost ratio (Cho et al., 2019).
Focusing on field stations in primate-range countries, we take stock of field stations’ CROI and explore the impact of the pandemic on their work. Specifically, we assess the real and perceived impact of the pandemic on field stations across the global tropics and subtropics, while also quantitatively evaluating the importance of these sites to biodiversity conservation. We use both traditional measures of CROI, that is, forest area protected and species biodiversity incorporated, and nonquantitative measures of conservation success, such as variation in patronage of field stations, variability in research programs, job creation, and development of long-term datasets, to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of conservation investment in field stations.
METHODSWe defined field stations as sites with permanent structure(s) owned, rented, or occupied by an institution or research group. Our field station definition was intentionally broad as we aimed to incorporate a wide range of field stations, including large, well-established multifunction institutions, to small sites managed by an individual research team.
Given the lack of an existing database for field stations (cf. Tydecks et al., 2016), we targeted field research stations in primate-range countries. Primates are a well-studied and diverse taxonomic order distributed throughout ∼90 countries (Mittermeier et al., 2013) and are often considered important species critical to tropical ecosystem function (Chapman et al., 2017; Estrada et al., 2017). As such, using established primate research networks provided a suitable forum for surveying a range of field stations across a large number of tropical countries.
Questionnaire surveyWe recruited individuals with leadership roles (e.g., Director/Manager; Principal Investigator; long-term personnel at the site) at field stations via direct email contact. We used several email lists and publicly available contact information, including (1) current or former members of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG), a group of more than 700 experts across the world, and members of primatological societies affiliated with the International Primatological Society; (2) contact points for Herbariums (
The survey was conducted between late March and early June 2022 and was available in English, French, and Spanish. The 70-question survey solicited both objective (e.g., location) and subjective (e.g., risks to field stations’ perpetuity, likelihood of closure, impact of conservation programs) information about field stations (see Appendices S1 and S2 for survey background and questionnaire).
Finally, we present an estimated median annual cost for operating field stations. Assuming a 5-km radius of direct field station effect on biodiversity (Campbell et al., 2011; Wintle et al., 2019), each field station impacts 78.54 km2 of habitat. We divided the median annual budget of field stations surveyed by this assumed area of direct impact. As with any social survey extrapolation, these data should be treated as estimates of the quantified benefits and costs of field stations, particularly as the scale of “direct field station effect” can vary across different contexts and species.
Spatial analysisTo quantify the impact of field stations on species conservation, we estimated the number of species ranges intersecting field stations using IUCN Red List for Threatened Species range maps (version 2022.1; IUCN, 2022) for all terrestrial tetrapods assessed as threatened (i.e., Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable), non-threatened (Least Concern, Near Threatened), and data deficient. We calculated the number of species per taxonomic group with geographic ranges overlapping field station locations per region. We then summarized the total number of species per taxon covered by field stations in different continents and by Red List category, while accounting for duplicates across field sites. This approach leads to an overestimate of species occurring at each site since geographic range maps can include unsuitable habitats for the species (Rondinini et al., 2006). However, this problem is likely mitigated by the aggregation of data across many field stations covering diverse habitats (i.e., a species not occurring in one field station can be present in others within its range). This analysis serves as a coarse estimate of the proportion of species with a threatened or data deficient status over the total (including non-threatened species) intersecting with the field stations in our study.
To evaluate whether field stations prevent forest cover loss, we documented changes in forest cover loss over time both at field stations and at similar, nearby areas outside of field stations’ influence (i.e., control points). We randomly sampled these potential control points from a donut-shaped band at least 5 km from the field station, but not farther than 50 km (Figure S1). From these potential control points, we selected the 10 points that were most similar to the field station with respect to several environmental and anthropogenic conditions: initial tree cover, protection status, temperature, precipitation, human population density, anthropogenic modification, and road density, using statistical matching (Andam et al., 2008; Joppa & Pfaff, 2011; Stuart et al., 2011; Sze et al., 2022). See Appendix S3 for full methods, variable names, and sources. We then used the Global Forest Change index v1.8 (Hansen et al., 2013) to quantify differences in forest cover loss between field stations and the mean of their 10 matched controls, weighted to increase the contributions of the control points most similar to the field station, over time (Appendix S3). This satellite-derived forest cover loss data are available for the years 2000–2020 (Hansen et al., 2013). Thus, we measured the total forest cover loss between the field station's specific founding year or from 2000, whichever was later, and until 2020, that is, the most recent year available.
RESULTSRespondents provided information on 157 field stations in 56 countries, representing 62% of the 90 countries in which primates naturally occur. Each major geographic region where primates occur was represented: 28% of these field stations were in Central and South America, 52% in Africa, and 20% in Asia. Eighty-five percent of all field stations (n = 145) were located in, or adjacent to, a formally protected area. At the time of the survey, most field stations (93% of n = 145) were still operating and had been in existence for an average of 22 ± 2.4 years (mean ± 95% confidence interval, range: 0–97 years, n = 154 stations).
Conservation, livelihoods, and research supported by field stationsMost survey respondents were of the opinion that, in comparison to other areas of the country where there were no field stations, the presence of a field station improved the habitat quality of the surrounding area (83% of n = 153 stations), reduced rates of hunting (86% of n = 147 stations), and improved enforcement of the law with regard to wildlife use/extraction (67% of n = 148 stations; Figure 1a–c). Almost all field stations surveyed had at least one full-time staff member (93% of n = 149 stations), with nearly half having between 5 and 75 staff (Figure 1e). Furthermore, 93% of field stations (n = 144 stations) hired locals. Almost all (98%) of the field stations were used by researchers (n = 151 stations; Figure 1f). In a normal (pre-COVID-19) year, the field stations were collectively used by ∼725–3315 researchers, with most field stations hosting researchers from two to five countries. Field stations were also used by students (83%), volunteers (60%), trainees or apprentices (47%), tourists and the general public (36%), and patrol guards, rangers, or other park authorities (11%). In a typical year, the field stations (n = 142) surveyed here received a total of ∼11,055–18,950 visitors from the general public, excluding outliers (i.e., a few field stations were on sites receiving tens of thousands of visitors per year; Figure 1g). The total number of scientific articles published across 150 of the field stations in a typical year ranged from ∼330 to 1255 papers (Figure 1h).
Enlarge this image.FIGURE 1. Selected results from our field stations survey. Compared to areas without field stations, survey respondents provided their perception of the impacts of field stations on (a) habitat quality, (b) hunting rates, and (c) law enforcement. Many field stations reported having (d) long-term datasets, some of which are publicly available. Each field station provided general information, so we present the total annual (e) staff employed, (f) researchers, (g) visitors, and (h) publication output of surveyed field stations. In addition to primate-related studies, (i) other research themes were common at many field stations.
Almost all field stations surveyed (97% of n = 141 stations) collected long-term data (Figure 1d), with one out of five (19% of n = 142 stations) sharing all their long-term datasets publicly and another 11% sharing some datasets publicly. In addition to primate research, field stations hosted research on 4.2 ± 0.3 other taxonomic groups or ecological disciplines (n = 140 stations; Figure 1i).
The effect of field stations on biodiversity and forest coverBased on our 5-km radius, the field stations in our study potentially overlapped with the IUCN Red List geographic ranges of 1215 terrestrial vertebrates that are listed as either threatened (1045) or data deficient (170), including 156 amphibians, 218 reptiles, 366 birds, and 475 mammals (169 of which are primates). The majority of these species were found in Africa (499), followed by Asia (377) and the Neotropics (342). An average of 13 threatened or data deficient species were covered by the field stations in Asia, 6.8 in the Neotropics, and 5.9 in Africa (Figure 2).
Enlarge this image.FIGURE 2. Percentage of threatened (i.e., Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable) and data deficient species per taxonomic group categorized by geographic region, as listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2022). The species list is obtained by intersecting all available species range maps for the different taxonomic groups with the 157 field stations across 56 countries. Percentages are calculated over the total number of species present (including Least Concern and Near Threatened species). The absolute number of threatened and data deficient species per taxonomic group is indicated above each bar.
We successfully matched 153 field stations to control points that were similar climatically and with regard to the level of anthropogenic influence they face and their starting forest cover (Appendix S3). Though global deforestation rates have increased over time, when we assessed the effect of each field station location against their matched control points, we found that forest cover loss was significantly less near field stations (p < 0.05), showing 17.6% less deforestation overall (Figure 3). This trend was mainly driven by field stations throughout Africa (22.0% less deforestation at field stations, p < 0.05). Nevertheless, the average forest cover was also less near field stations in the Neotropics and Asia, with 13.2% (p = 0.16) and 12.0% (p = 0.26) less deforestation, respectively.
Enlarge this image.FIGURE 3. Map of field station locations surveyed (n = 157) across the global distribution of primates (Jenkins et al., 2013), indicated by the darker gray. Field station color indicates the change in forest cover loss for each site compared to its matched control points since 2000 or the founding of the field station, whichever was most recent. Sites with white dots (NA) are ones for which suitable matched points could not be located (n = 4). The density plots show that field stations reduce deforestation globally (64% of field stations exhibited less forest cover loss than the surrounding area). This trend is driven by less forest loss at field stations in Africa (69% of field stations) and the Neotropics (60%), but less so in Asia (58%), perhaps due to the smaller sample size.
Typical operating budgets (in a non-COVID-19 year) were often small, with half of the field stations running on less than US$50,000 (55% of n = 118 stations; interquartile range: US$200,000). Assuming a 5-km radius of direct field station impact on biodiversity (Wintle et al., 2019), the associated median annual cost is ∼US$637/km2. Forty percent of field stations had budgets between US$50,000 and US$500,000. These budgets were often sourced from three or fewer different funding sources, and one-quarter (23%) had only one type of funding source. Three-quarters of field stations (76% of n = 140 stations) relied partially or exclusively on one-off grants for funding, half (49%) relied partially or exclusively on earned income, and just one-third (34%) had secured streams of income or endowments.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused half of the field stations (48% out of n = 128 stations) to close partially or completely from March 2020 to June 2022. At the time of the survey, almost one quarter (22% of n = 156 stations) remained partially or completely closed due to COVID-19. Most respondents (72% of n = 143 stations) had been able to visit the field station at some point after the global onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and most stations (76% of n = 143 stations) had put adaptive measures in place to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on work at those sites. Since March 2020, half (50% of n = 131 field stations) had less or much less funding, compared to 9% with more funding.
Looking forward, just under half of the field stations (46% of n = 137 stations) anticipated being able to continue 76%–100% of the work they would have done before COVID-19. Furthermore, 15% of field stations said they expected to continue only 0%–25% of their work.
DISCUSSIONField stations are viewed to deter illegal natural resource extraction and defaunation (Figure 1) and reduce deforestation in regions that are not on track to meet their forest protection goals (i.e., Neotropics, Africa; Figure 3; FDAP, 2022). These benefits to biodiversity cost a median US$637/km2, assuming a 5-km radius of effect (e.g., Campbell et al., 2011; Wintle et al., 2019). This gives field research stations a strong positive CROI, similar to the proposed budgets in the Africa Park Network for effective management (Lindsey et al., 2018). Indeed, most surveyed field stations reported operating budgets that are half—or even less—of the global mean budget for protected areas, US$1,689/km2, adjusted for inflation (James et al., 1999). Like protected areas, these conservation sentinels would yield an even greater CROI with reliable and increased funding.
Field stations also benefit conservation efforts in a variety of other ways: they support the production of scientific articles, training and awareness, local economic expansion, and maintenance of irreplaceable, multidecadal climate and biodiversity datasets (e.g., Chapman et al., 2017; NRC, 2014; Sharma et al., 2022). The field stations we surveyed estimated they cumulatively produce ∼1255 scientific articles annually. The amount of published research stemming from these locations provides a critical contribution to conservation initiatives: continually updating and improving essential information used for evidence-based decisions in a cross-discipline field (Christie et al., 2021; Kareiva & Marvier, 2012). Field stations also provide a hub for intergenerational and international collaboration and learning. Field station respondents reported hosting up to 3315 researchers each year, including students, scientists, conservation professionals, and community members, with a further ∼18,950 visitors annually. Given the evidence that conservation messaging to ecotourists is strongly influenced by interactions between visitors and researchers/professionals (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020; NRC, 2014), field stations represent a unique convocation of these disparate biodiversity enthusiasts. Furthermore, 93% of field stations incentivized conservation initiatives by hiring from local communities, improving both local livelihoods and the success of their conservation programs (Wali et al., 2017). In fact, the involvement of local nationals in management positions, and in some cases ownership, is what allowed over half of the field stations surveyed to remain at least partially operational during the pandemic.
Unfortunately, it is evident from our study and others that field stations, like the biodiversity they protect, are at risk (Likens & Wagner, 2021). Half the surveyed field stations had budgets reduced from their 2020 numbers and are now facing global inflation. With each global crisis, the resilience of field stations decreases (Schubel, 2015), and current events foreshadow years of difficulty for these institutions. Recent global crises have triggered higher energy prices, increased human population densities, and increased food insecurity across many high-biodiversity countries (Benton et al., 2022) and have led to increased natural resource extraction (Rawtani et al., 2022). Likewise, the threat of global recession (IMF, 2022) is impacting field station budgets, which cannot accommodate rising inflation.
Most field stations typically function autonomously, perhaps explaining why few studies have explored the aggregate impact of their work (cf. NRC, 2014; Tydecks et al., 2016; Wyman et al., 2009). Despite this, our study suggests that field stations cumulatively make a substantial contribution to conservation. Conservation science relies on quantitative evidence collected at field stations to provide foundational knowledge for designing effective strategies (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012), and while those strategies tend to be focused regionally, their shared expertise can inspire solutions globally (NRC, 2014).
While field stations alone cannot ensure the persistence of species, we found that they are more successful at protecting local wildlife populations, among other clear and quantifiable conservation benefits at a relatively low cost. Meanwhile, countries throughout the Neotropics and Africa struggle to meet forest protection goals (FDAP, 2022), and global protected area personnel numbers and capacity are insufficient for effectively safeguarding biodiversity (Appleton et al., 2022; Maxwell et al., 2020). Though our approach was mostly limited to tropical field stations hosting primate research, we would expect comparable positive impacts of field stations globally. Accordingly, failing to include field stations in international policy frameworks that address the global biodiversity crisis represents a profound missed opportunity (Strier et al., 2021; Wyman et al., 2009). We urge funders to reverse their declining support of long-term field station programs and increase investment beyond prepandemic levels. Similarly, we encourage governments and universities, both in the tropics and elsewhere, to recognize field stations as crucial, high-CROI tools for meeting conservation targets and to adopt policies that will promote the establishment and growth of field stations. These policies should incorporate strategies/contingencies to ensure long-term conservation and research activities, including through crisis periods, such as occurred during the COVID pandemic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe origin of this paper was inspired by a keynote lecture from Lifetime Achievement Award recipient, Professor Vernon Reynolds, at the 2022 meeting of the International Primatological Society in Quito, Ecuador. This study is dedicated to the late Christophe Boesch, who suddenly passed on January 14, 2024. He founded the ongoing Taï Chimpanzee Project in 1979 and his vision for long-term field research has galvanized and supported many field sites around the globe. His passion for science and conservation has inspired all of us. He will be truly missed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTAll authors are affiliated with one or more field stations; thus, the perception of multiple conflicts of interest exists.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDue to our IRB ethics approval, we are unable to provide any individual/field station identifying information; however, anonymized data and statistical codes used to support this study can be found in the following repository:
None.
© 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Reuter, Kim E 2 ; Sefczek, Timothy M 3
; Tinsman, Jen 4
; Santini, Luca 5
; Hoeks, Selwyn 6
; Andriantsaralaza, Seheno 7 ; Shanee, Sam 8
; Anthony Di Fiore 9
; Setchell, Joanna M 10
; Strier, Karen B 11
; Abanyam, Peter A 12 ; Aini Hasanah Abd Mutalib 13
; Abwe, Ekwoge 14 ; Ahmed, Tanvir 15
; Ancrenaz, Marc 16
; Andriantsimanarilafy, Raphali R 17
; Ang, Andie 18
; Aureli, Filippo 19
; Barrett, Louise 20
; Beehner, Jacinta C 21
; Benítez, Marcela E 22
; Bezerra, Bruna M 23
; Bicca-Marques, Júlio César 24
; Bikaba, Dominique 25
; Bitariho, Robert 26
; Boesch, Christophe 27
; Bolt, Laura M 28
; Boonratana, Ramesh 29
; Butynski, Thomas M 30 ; Canale, Gustavo R 31
; Carvalho, Susana 32
; Chapman, Colin A 33
; Chetry, Dilip 34
; Cheyne, Susan M 35
; Cords, Marina 36
; Cornejo, Fanny M 37
; Cortés-Ortiz, Liliana 38
; Camille N. Z. Coudrat 39
; Crofoot, Margaret C 40
; Cronin, Drew T 41
; Alvine Dadjo 42 ; Dakpogan, S Chrystelle 43 ; Danquah, Emmanuel 44
; Davenport, Tim R B 45
; de Jong, Yvonne A 30
; de la Torre, Stella 46
; Dempsey, Andrea 47
; Dimalibot, Judeline C 48 ; Dolch, Rainer 49 ; Donati, Giuseppe 50
; Estrada, Alejandro 51
; Farassi, Rassina A 52 ; Fashing, Peter J 53
; Fernandez-Duque, Eduardo 54
; Maria J. Ferreira da Silva 55
; Fischer, Julia 56
; Flores-Negrón, César F 57
; Fruth, Barbara 58
; Terence Fuh Neba 59
; Lief Erikson Gamalo 60
; Ganzhorn, Jörg U 61
; Garber, Paul A 62
; Gnanaolivu, Smitha D 63
; Gonder, Mary Katherine 64
; Sery Ernest Gonedelé Bi 65
; Goossens, Benoit 66
; Gordo, Marcelo 67
; Guayasamin, Juan M 68
; Guzmán-Caro, Diana C 69
; Halloran, Andrew R 70 ; Hartel, Jessica A 71 ; Heymann, Eckhard W 72
; Hill, Russell A 73
; Hockings, Kimberley J 74
; Hohmann, Gottfried 75 ; Naven Hon 76 ; Houngbédji, Mariano G 77
; Huffman, Michael A 78
; Ikemeh, Rachel A 79 ; Imong, Inaoyom 80 ; Irwin, Mitchell T 81
; Izar, Patrícia 82
; Jerusalinsky, Leandro 83
; Kalema-Zikusoka, Gladys 84
; Kaplin, Beth A 85
; Kappeler, Peter M 86
; Kivai, Stanislaus M 87 ; Knott, Cheryl D 88
; Kolasartsanee, Intanon 89 ; Koops, Kathelijne 90
; Kowalewski, Martin M 91
; Deo Kujirakwinja 92
; Kumar, Ajith 93 ; Le, Quyet K 94
; Lewis, Rebecca J 95
; Aung Ko Lin 96 ; Link, Andrés 97
; Loría, Luz I 98
; Lormie, Menladi M 99
; Louis, Edward E, Jr 100
; Ngwe Lwin 96
; Maisels, Fiona 101
; Malaivijitnond, Suchinda 102
; Lesley Marisa 103 ; McCabe, Gráinne M 104
; McGraw, W Scott 105
; Addisu Mekonnen 106
; Méndez-Carvajal, Pedro G 107
; Minhós, Tânia 108
; Montgomery, David M 109 ; Morelos-Juárez, Citlalli 110
; Morgan, Bethan J 111
; Morgan, David 112
; Etingüe, Amancio Motove 113 ; Ndiaye, Papa Ibnou 114
; Nekaris, K Anne-Isola 115
; Nguyen, Nga 116 ; Nijman, Vincent 117
; Radar Nishuli 118 ; Norconk, Marilyn A 119
; Oklander, Luciana I 120
; Rahayu Oktaviani 121
; Ostner, Julia 122
; Otali, Emily 123
; Perry, Susan E 124
; Pinel Ramos, Eduardo J 125 ; Porter, Leila M 126
; Pruetz, Jill D 127
; Pusey, Anne E 128
; Queiroz, Helder L 129
; Ramírez, Mónica A 130
; Guy Hermas Randriatahina 131 ; Rasoanaivo, Hoby 132
; Ratsimbazafy, Jonah 133 ; Ratsirarson, Joelisoa 134 ; Razafindramanana, Josia 135 ; Razafindratsima, Onja H 136
; Reynolds, Vernon 137
; Rizaldi, Rizaldi 138
; Robbins, Martha M 27
; Rodríguez, Melissa E 139
; Rosales-Meda, Marleny 140 ; Sanz, Crickette M 141 ; Sarkar, Dipto 142
; Savage, Anne 143
; Schreier, Amy L 144
; Schülke, Oliver 122
; Segniagbeto, Gabriel H 145
; Serio-Silva, Juan Carlos 146
; Setiawan, Arif 147
; Seyjagat, John 148 ; Silva, Felipe E 149
; Sinclair, Elizabeth M 150 ; Smith, Rebecca L 151
; Spaan, Denise 152
; Stewart, Fiona A 153
; Strum, Shirley C 154
; Surbeck, Martin 155
; Svensson, Magdalena S 50
; Talebi, Mauricio 156
; Tédonzong, Luc Roscelin 157
; Urbani, Bernardo 158
; Valsecchi, João 159
; Vasey, Natalie 160
; Vogel, Erin R 161
; Wallace, Robert B 162
; Wallis, Janette 163 ; Waters, Siân 164
; Wittig, Roman M 165
; Wrangham, Richard W 166
; Wright, Patricia C 167
; Mittermeier, Russell A 168
1 Wildlife Madagascar, Antananarivo, Madagascar; Department of Anthropology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA; Conservation Science and Wildlife Health, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, California, USA; IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland
2 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Lemur Love Inc., San Diego, California, USA; College of Arts and Sciences, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
3 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Global Integrative Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA; Center for Conservation and Research, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
4 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Center for Conservation and Research, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Omaha, Nebraska, USA; Center for Tropical Research, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
5 Department of Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin”, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
6 Department of Environmental Science, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
7 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Lemur Love Inc., San Diego, California, USA
8 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Neotropical Primate Conservation, Seaton, UK; Asociación Neotropical Primate Conservation Perú, Moyobamba, Perú
9 Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA; Estación de Biodiversidad Tiputini, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito-USFQ, Quito, Ecuador
10 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK
11 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
12 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Conservation Society, Calabar, Nigeria
13 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institute of Tropical Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
14 Conservation Science and Wildlife Health, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, California, USA; IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Ebo Forest Research Project, Douala, Cameroon
15 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Research and Conservation Unit, Nature Conservation Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh
16 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; HUTAN-KOCP, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia; Sabah Wildlife Department, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
17 Madagasikara Voakajy, Antananarivo, Madagascar
18 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Mandai Nature, Singapore, Singapore
19 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Instituto de Neuroetología, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa-Enríquez, México; School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
20 Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; Applied Behavioural Ecology and Ecosystem Research Unit, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
21 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
22 Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
23 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamento e Conservação, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil
24 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
25 Strong Roots Congo, Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
26 Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda
27 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
28 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; Maderas Rainforest Conservancy, Miami, Florida, USA
29 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Mahidol University International College, Salaya, Thailand
30 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Lolldaiga Hills Research Programme, Nanyuki, Kenya; Eastern Africa Primate Diversity and Conservation Program, Nanyuki, Kenya
31 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Instituto de Ciências Naturais, Humanas e Sociais, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, Brazil; Instituto Ecótono, Sinop, Brazil
32 Primate Models for Behavioural Evolution Lab, Institute of Human Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Interdisciplinary Centre for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour (ICArEHB), Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
33 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Biology Department, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
34 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Primate Research & Conservation Division, Aaranyak, Guwahati, India
35 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK; Borneo Nature Foundation International, Tremough Innovation Centre, Penryn, UK
36 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
37 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Yunkawasi, Lima, Perú
38 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
39 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Association Anoulak, Nakai-Nam Theun National Park Office, Nakai, Lao People's Democratic Republic
40 Department for the Ecology of Animal Societies, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Konstanz, Germany; Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany; Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Republic of Panama
41 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; North Carolina Zoo, Asheboro, North Carolina, USA
42 Cameroon Biodiversity Protection Program, CAMBIO (Cameroon Biodiversity Association), Mbam Djerem, Cameroon
43 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Organisation pour le Développement Durable et la Biodiversité, Cotonou, Benin
44 Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
45 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Re:Wild, Arusha, Tanzania
46 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Estación de Biodiversidad Tiputini, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito-USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito-USFQ, Quito, Ecuador
47 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; West African Primate Conservation Action, Accra, Ghana
48 Institute of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños, Philippines
49 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Association Mitsinjo, Andasibe, Madagascar
50 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
51 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Estacion de Biologia Los Tuxtlas Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Veracruz, México
52 Fundació UdG: Innovació i Formació, Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain; Gorongosa National Park, Sofala, Mozambique
53 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Division of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California, USA; CEES, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
54 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
55 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal; CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Campus de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal; ONE - Organisms and Environment Group, School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
56 Cognitive Ethology Laboratory, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany; Department of Primate Cognition, Georg-August-Universtät Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
57 San Diego Zoo Global Peru, Cusco, Perú
58 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Konstanz, Germany
59 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; WWF Central African Republic Programme, Bangui, Central African Republic
60 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, College of Science and Mathematics, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines
61 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institute of Zoology, Animal Ecology and Conservation, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
62 Department of Anthropology, and Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA; International Centre of Biodiversity and Primate Conservation, Dali University, Dali, China
63 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; The Habitats Trust, Shiv Nadar Foundation, Noida, India; Wildlife Information Liaison Development (WILD), Coimbatore, India
64 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Biology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
65 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; UFR Biosciences, Université Félix Houphouët Boigny, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire; Suisse de Recherches Scientifique, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire
66 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Sabah Wildlife Department, Danau Girang Field Centre, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia; Organisms and Environment Division, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
67 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Laboratório de Biologia da Conservação, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil; CREATE-NEO Project, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
68 Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Instituto Biósfera, Laboratorio de Biología Evolutiva, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador; Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
69 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Conservation Bridges, Bogotá, Colombia
70 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Save the Chimps, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida, USA; Tonkolili Chimpanzee Project, Loxahatchee, Florida, USA
71 Biology Department, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, Georgia, USA; Kibale Chimpanzee Project, Kibale National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda; Metropolitan Community College, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
72 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany
73 Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK; Department of Zoology, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa
74 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
75 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany; Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Konstanz, Germany
76 Conservation International-Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
77 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Organisation pour le Développement Durable et la Biodiversité, Cotonou, Benin; Ecole de Foresterie et Gestion de la Faune, Université Nationale d'Agriculture, Porto Novo, Benin
78 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Research Center, Kyoto University, Inuyama, Japan
79 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; SW/Niger Delta Forest Project, Abuja, Nigeria
80 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
81 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA; ONG SADABE, Antananarivo, Madagascar
82 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
83 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Primatas Brasileiros, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio/CPB), Floresta Nacional da Restinga de Cabedelo, Cabedelo, Brazil
84 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Conservation Through Public Health (CTPH), Entebbe, Uganda
85 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Center of Excellence in Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management, University of Rwanda, Huye, Rwanda; School for the Environment, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
86 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany; Department Sociobiology and Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
87 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
88 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Gunung Palung Orangutan Conservation Program, West Kalimantan, Indonesia
89 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
90 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Ape Behaviour & Ecology Group, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
91 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Estación Biológica Corrientes - Centro de Ecología Aplicada del Litoral (CECOAL-CONICET-UNNE), Corrientes, Argentina
92 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA; Institut Supérieur du Tourisme, Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
93 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India; Trans-Disciplinary University, Bangalore, India
94 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fauna & Flora International - Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam
95 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA; Ankoatsifaka Research Station, Kirindy Mitea National Park, Menabe, Madagascar
96 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fauna & Flora International, Myanmar Programme, Yangon, Myanmar
97 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia; Fundación Proyecto Primates, Bogotá, Colombia
98 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fundación Pro-Conservación de los Primates Panameños, Panamá City, Republic of Panama; Departamento de Suelos y Aguas, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Panamá, Sede Chiriquí, Republic of Panama
99 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Forestry Development Authority, Whein Town, Paynesville, Liberia
100 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Center for Conservation and Research, Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, Omaha, Nebraska, USA; Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership, NGO, Antananarivo, Madagascar
101 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA; Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
102 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; National Primate Research Center of Thailand, Chulalongkorn University, Saraburi, Thailand; Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
103 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Solusi University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
104 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
105 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
106 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
107 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fundación Pro-Conservación de los Primates Panameños, Panamá City, Republic of Panama; Grupo de Investigación de Primatología de la Universidad de Panamá (GIP-UP), Bella Vista, Republic of Panama
108 Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA – NOVA FCSH), Lisbon, Portugal; Department of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
109 Bioko Biodiversity Protection Program, Department of Biology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
110 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fundación Reserva Tesoro Escondido, Quito, Ecuador
111 Conservation Science and Wildlife Health, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, California, USA; IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Ebo Forest Research Project, Douala, Cameroon; Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
112 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois, USA
113 Bioko Biodiversity Protection Program, Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
114 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Département de Biologie Animale, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Dakar, Senegal
115 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK; Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, Indonesia
116 Division of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California, USA; CEES, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
117 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK; Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
118 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
119 Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA
120 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Grupo de Investigación en Genética Aplicada (GIGA), Instituto de Biología Subtropical (IBS), Universidad Nacional de Misiones y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (UNAM-CONICET), Posadas, Argentina; Neotropical Primate Conservation Argentina, Puerto Iguazu, Argentina
121 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Yayasan Konservasi Ekosistem Alam Nusantara (KIARA), Komplek Laladon Indah, Bogor, Indonesia; Javan Gibbons Research and Conservation Project, Bogor, Indonesia
122 Department of Behavioral Ecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; Primate Social Evolution Group, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany
123 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Kibale Chimpanzee Project, Makerere University Biological Field Station, Fort Portal, Uganda; Kibale Forest Schools Program, Fort Portal, Uganda
124 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
125 Instituto de Neuroetología, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa-Enríquez, México
126 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
127 Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
128 Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
129 Research Group on Primate Biology and Conservation, Mamirauá Institute for Sustainable Development, Tefé, Brazil
130 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
131 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Association Européenne pour l'Etude et la Conservation des Lémuriens, Antananarivo, Madagascar
132 Lemur Love Inc., San Diego, California, USA
133 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Groupe d'Etude et de Recherche sur les Primates (GERP), Antananarivo, Madagascar
134 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Département Agroécologie, Biodiversité et Changement Climatique, ESSA, Université d'Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar
135 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; IMPACT Madagascar, Antananarivo, Madagascar; Mention Anthropobiologie et Développement Durable, Faculté des Sciences, Université d'Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar
136 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
137 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Budongo Conservation Field Station, Masindi, Uganda
138 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Andalas University, Padang, Indonesia
139 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Programa de Conservación Ateles de la Asociación Territorios Vivos El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador
140 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Organización para la Conservación de la Naturaleza y Desarrollo Comunitario, Cobán, Guatemala
141 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Wildlife Conservation Society, Congo Program, Brazzaville, Democratic Republic of Congo
142 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
143 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Proyecto Titi, Inc., Orlando, Florida, USA
144 Maderas Rainforest Conservancy, Miami, Florida, USA; Biology Department, Regis University, Denver, Colorado, USA
145 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Laboratory of Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, University of Lomé, Lomé, Togo; Togolese Society for Nature Conservation (AGBO-ZEGUE NGO), Lomé, Togo
146 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, México
147 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; SwaraOwa, Coffee and Primate Conservation Project, Java, Indonesia
148 Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain, Trinidad; Zoological Association of America, Punta Gorda, Florida, USA
149 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Research Group on Primate Biology and Conservation, Mamirauá Institute for Sustainable Development, Tefé, Brazil; Unit of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology (EBE), Département de Biologie des Organismes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
150 Department of Biology, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA; Bioko Marine Turtle Program, Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
151 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Fundación Para La Tierra, Pilar, Paraguay
152 Instituto de Neuroetología, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa-Enríquez, México; ConMonoMaya A.C., Chemax, Mexico
153 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK; Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK
154 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Uaso Ngiro Baboon Project, Nairobi, Kenya; Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
155 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
156 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Departamento de Cíências Ambientais, Lab Ecologia e Conservação da Natureza and the Programa Análise Ambiental Integrada, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Pró-Muriqui Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
157 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Centre for Research and Conservation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Projet Grands Singes, Yaoundé, Cameroon
158 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Göttingen, Germany; Center for Anthropology, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, Caracas, Venezuela
159 Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, Tefé, Brazil; Rede de Pesquisa para Estudos sobre Diversidade, Conservação e Uso da Fauna na Amazônia (RedeFauna), Manaus, Brazil
160 Department of Anthropology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA
161 Department of Anthropology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
162 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife Conservation Society, Bolivia Program, La Paz, Bolivia
163 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Kasokwa-Kityedo Forest Project, Masindi, Uganda
164 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK; Barbary Macaque Awareness and Conservation, Tetouan, Morocco
165 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institute for Cognitive Sciences, CNRS, University of Lyon, Lyon, France; Tai Chimpanzee Project, Suisse de Recherches Scientifique, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire
166 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
167 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Institute for the Conservation of Tropical Environments, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA; Centre ValBio, Ranomafana, Madagascar
168 IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland; Re:Wild, Austin, Texas, USA