As described in a recently published paper in Biology Letters, the Philippine Tarsier (Tarsius syrichta) has been found to communicate through extremely high pitched vocalisations in the ultrasound domain, undetectable by human ear. These presumed mute primates baffled primatologists… How can such lack of calls be observed when closely related species are clearly dependent on frequent vocal signals within the group? However the mystery was solved when upon further inspection, these little guys could be heard communicating among the highest frequency levels detected from any terrestrial mammals. It is now thought the extremes of these calls could allow conspecifics to communicate whilst remaining undetected by predators or prey and/or allow individuals to be more easily heard through background noise.

(Ramsier et al. 2012) Primate communication in the pure ultrasound.
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.1149

Pairs of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) where placed into testing rooms, separated by a mesh barrier. One individual had access to 30 tokens, divided into two separate colours – all of which could be given to the experimenter in exchange for food. Half of these when exchanged resulted in a selfish outcome in which only the individual handing the token received a reward, whereas the other half resulted in an altruistic outcome where both individuals received an equal reward. The individual handing the tokens to the experimenter was rewarded regardless.

If chimpanzees where choosing under a system driven by selfish interests, there should be a preference towards the choice where only the individual in control of the tokens receives a reward, and if the choice was purely random, each token would be expected to be seen 50% of the time. However, it was found that pairs where significantly more likely to share a reward (displaying prosocial behaviour), than choose the selfish option.

Victoria Hornera, J. Devyn Cartera, Malini Suchaka, and Frans B. M. de Waal (2011). Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences : 10.1073/pnas.1111088108

A recent article in the journal, Zoo Biology, discusses the current lack of gum enrichment for certain primate species in a captive setting that is in contrast to their wild behavior. Huber and Lewis (2011) surveyed zoos at an international scale to assess the occurrence and methods of “gum-based enrichment.”

Patas Monkey at Woodland Park Zoo (Photo: Kristin Abt)

Golden Lion Tamarin at National Zoo (Photo: Kristin Abt)

They identify numerous primates that feed on gums in varying amounts in the wild, including galagos and lorises, marmosets and tamarins, and members of Cercopithecinae.  Because enrichment aims to promote species-typical behaviors in a non-natural environment, the items that are offered should be primarily selected based on whether or not they contribute to this aim.

This study obtained responses from 46 zoos, 27 of which feed gum to at least some of their primates. The greatest disparity between wild gum-feeding and captive gum-provisioning was for cercopithecines. They identify patas monkeys as obligate gumnivores; therefore, they specifically highlight the need for the development of enrichment programs utilizing gum for this species. Also, they highlight the need to provide enrichment devices that simulate how primates feed on gum in the wild as opposed to free-feeding in dishes.

Patas Monkey Exhibit (Photo: Kristin Abt)

Huber and Lewis (2011) take a focused approach to assessing an area of enrichment within zoos that can have a marked management impact. This study shows the value of applied research to enhance the ability of zoos and other facilities to care for their collections in a manner more representative of the wild experience.

Reference:

Huber, H. F. & Lewis, K. P. (2011). “An assessment of gum-based environmental enrichment for captive gumnivorous primates.” Zoo Biology 30: 71-78.

Orangutan at Sepilok (Photo: Kristin Abt)

A recent article “Fostering Appropriate Behavior in Rehabilitant Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)” published online in the International Journal of Primatology discusses research on the behavior of rehabilitant orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and P. abelii) at the Orangutan Care and Quarantine Centre in Pangkalan Bun, Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo). Much past research has focused on postrelease behavior of rehabilitated orangutans and on the behavior of wild individuals; therefore, this research is especially timely and useful for the number of centers currently attempting to rehabilitate the ever-increasing number of displaced great apes and other fauna (Descovich et al., 2011).

Orangutans (n=40) in this study included males and females, mass classes ranging from 5 to 25 kg, and good, moderate, and poor health distinctions. Individuals were observed continuously for a period of 5 hours during 3 separate forest excursions each.  A number of behaviors relevant to postrelease success in the forest habitat were recorded (type of locomotion, social behavior, such as play, human caretaker interaction, point of height in tree or on ground, feeding and food choice, grooming, etc.).

Results from this study showed that rehabilitant individuals’ masses were associated with the amount of time spent at the centre. Authors note this finding as a result of the early age of admittance to the centre for most individuals. Further, orangutans in better health spent an increased amount of time consuming food and less time resting than other categories. In terms of locomotion (>30% of overall time), quadrupedal movement in trees was the dominant method (again, with orangutans in better health doing so more often). Individuals who had been at the Care Centre longer spent more time on the ground rather than swinging or other locomotion. As the day in which focal individuals were observed continued, human interaction increased.

As rehabilitation of orphaned individuals is a component of the long-term species survival of orangutans, research regarding the behavior of these individuals is important for increasing the chance of postrelease survival and success. Additionally, as their habitat is lost as a result of a number of conservation threats, land protection is necessary to provide habitat in which the released individuals and their wild conspecifics can live.

Reference

Descovich, K. A., Galdikas, B. M., Tribe, A., Lisle, A., & Phillips, C. J. 2011. Fostering appropriate behavior in rehabilitant orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). International Journal of Primatology. doi:10.1007/s10764-011-9491-1

Orangutan Foundation International (a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization) supports the work of the Orangutan Care and Quarantine Centre and other crucial efforts to promote orangutan conservation, including land protection, research, and education. Visit www.orangutan.org to donate directly to OFI. If you would like to donate items specifically to enhance the lives of individuals at the Care Centre, visit this wishlist to select items that orangutans, such as those in this study, will greatly benefit from. If you would like to learn more, look for the upcoming IMAX© movie Born to Be Wild to be released in theaters April 8, 2011.

The “pass“ option was used in an identical fashion to that of human participants, and the macaques were observed to show self-doubting behaviour – a trait which was previously thought to be unique to us. When capuchins were faced with an identical challenge, they failed to take this third option, and seemed unaware when they are likely to make an error.

More information and Video at; BBC – Earth News

Recently published online in the International Journal of Primatology, an article by Humle, Colin, Laurans, and Raballand (2010) discusses the release of a group of 12 chimpanzeees into the High Niger National Park in Guinea, West Africa. Through the efforts of the Chimpanzee Conservation Center, 9 chimpanzees remain in natural habitat at the time of publication. The conservation benefits of this substantial undertaking are numerous:

• While the park already has a viable population of chimpanzees, this effort adds reproductively mature individuals and genetic material to the endangered wild population.
• Additionally, with over 1000 chimpanzees in sanctuaries and other facilities rather than in the wild, the need to address their long-term management is acute. Not only is the individual welfare of the released chimpanzees enhanced, this scientific study of the release process will also aid conservation practitioners in the implementation of future chimpanzee rehabilitation.
• As the authors point out, the conservation status and role of the release area is promoted to the government and general public, which will hopefully bolster its future capacity to serve as suitable habitat for many species.

Previous reintroduction efforts have led to the adoption of an overall chimpanzee reintroduction plan that emphasizes adequate rehabilitation training for individuals and substantial monitoring following release. In order to determine an appropriate area for release, the authors cite numerous components, including habitat suitability (food, other resources, terrain, etc.), level of and proximity to human pressures, and the overall ability of chimpanzees to thrive in the absence of human involvement. Further, in order to monitor the activities of the chimpanzees, researchers used radiotracking collars on released individuals.

Chimpanzee (Photo: Kristin Abt)

The release site was chosen in part due to its strict protection as a core area within the park and its minimal roads. The demographics of the released individuals were 6 males and 6 females ranging from 8 to 20 years of age. Information included in the article details the social familiarity of the group, survival skills possessed by the individuals, and the number of years each had access to formative “bush-outings” with caretakers and expansive, naturalistic enclosures. Additionally, the researchers verified the genetic appropriateness of the subspecies (Pan troglodytes verus) and the overall health of each chimpanzee. The article also provides a 20 month timeline of events relevant to the release process including group dynamics, deaths, births, and sightings with wild chimpanzees.

Humle et al (2010) discusses the ranging patterns and habitat use of the released chimpanzees to obtain an overall picture of their behavior compared to typical wild chimpanzees in the area. Released males traveled significantly further than released females as measured by maximum mean distance travelled. They also remained significantly further from the release site than the females. Overall, the chimpanzees preferred forested areas over open space. Within the mixed forest-savanna habitat where the chimpanzees were released, the individuals remain independent of human provisioning. Additionally, two chimpanzees have been born to released females. Humle et al (2010) suggests that part of the success of the released chimpanzees could be due to the lower population densities of wild chimpanzees in the mixed habitat type along with their relatively larger ranges.

A number of agencies and professionals will ultimately contribute to the conservation efforts of a given species, as noted by the authors. This paper attempted to combine data on behavior, ecology, conservation, and wildlife management in order to approach the multi-faceted undertaking of chimpanzee rehabilitation. As with many conservation projects, communication and an interdisciplinary approach are needed to successfully achieve targeted goals.

The Chimpanzee Conservation Centre (CCC) is a member of the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) that aims to promote the welfare and conservation of primates in African countries. It unites sanctuaries together to train professionals at the facilities about animal management, veterinary care, and education. PASA accepts donations at its website to continue its primate care and conservation efforts.

Reference

Humle, T., Colin, C., Laurans, M., & Raballand, E. (2010). Group release of sanctuary chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the Haut Niger National Park, Guinea, West Africa: Ranging patterns and lessons so far. International Journal of Primatology. doi: 10.1007/s10764-010-9482-7

Macaque (Photo: Kristin Abt)

While macaques are able to utilize a variety of human habitats, Malaivijitnond and Hamada (2008) suggest that anthropogenic land-use change has forced these animals to coexist in human-dominated landscapes. Long-tailed macaques are naturally found in low elevation habitats, including, seashores, swamp and mangrove forests, and river banks (Eudey, 2008). Studies have found, however, that long-tailed macaques prefer secondary, disturbed forests to the primary forests that most other primate species prefer (Richard, Goldstein, & Dewar, 1989). Macaques are commonly seen and encouraged in monkey parks, temples, monasteries, city and forest parks, and restaurants, often with individuals released as pets incorporated into the urban troops (Malaivijitnond & Hamada, 2008). This study based in Thailand found that groups averaged two-hundred monkeys per location with five locations containing upwards of one thousand individuals in a single group, including numerous subspecies and hybridized animals. These groups are locally overcrowded, which exacerbates human-wildlife conflict, especially in dry seasons and limited food supply (Malaivijitnond & Hamada, 2008). An extreme example of such conflict possible in an urban environment occurred in Malaysia where a suspected long-tailed macaque approached a house, potentially attracted by the female pet monkey, and grabbed a baby that it later dropped to the ground when it became alarmed. The child did not survive the incident and the monkey was found and shot (“Monkey snatches,” 2010).

Aggressive encounters with macaques are common in urban areas and some countries hire guards in public places to chase the animals away (Richard, Goldstein, & Dewar, 1989). Unintentionally, humans contribute to the problem by leaving garbage for them to raid (Eudey, 2008). In many cases, humans actively promote their presence for spiritual and entertainment purposes by provisioning food for the macaques, including banana, papaya, watermelon, mango, rambutan, pineapple, and coconut (Malaivijitnond & Hamada, 2008). These authors noted that local villagers in Thailand will hold “feeding parties” for the macaques and stop their cars to allow troops to cross roads, yet need to protect their buildings and houses with metal and protective guarding from the damage caused by macaques. There is also the potential for zoonotic disease transmission, including the potentially fatal herpes B simplex virus, from macaques to people. Long-tailed macaques will also commonly raid human crops, including rubber fruits, rice shoots, corn, and beans, causing some to label them as pest or “weed” species (Richard, Goldstein, & Dewar, 1989). The monkeys have been seen raiding palm oil plantations in Borneo, as well (personal observation).

Long-tailed macaques exist in the absence of humans on forest edges with suitable access to fruits and crustaceans; however, the urban environment facilitates their feeding and reproduction potential by increasing group sizes and decreasing their need to forage and seek wild habitat. Humans both promote macaque populations through provisioning and protection in some habitats and hinder through habitat fragmentation, exportation for research, human consumption, and the pet-trade.

References

Eudey, A. A. (2008). “The crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis): Widespread and rapidly declining.” Primate Conservation, 23, 129-132.

Malaivijitnond, S., & Hamada, Y. (2008). Current situation and status of long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in Thailand. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University, 8(2), 185-204.

“Monkey snatches, kills baby in Malaysia.” October 7, 2010. My Fox DC. Retrieved from www.myfoxdc.com.

Richard, A. F., Goldstein, S. J., & Dewar, R. E. (1989). “Weed macaques: The evolutionary implications of macaque feeding ecology.” International Journal of Primatology, 10(6), 569-594.

One remarkable finding of the study is the estimated divergence between the Sumatran and Bornean species. The team calculated the two species diverged 400,000 years ago. We know that land bridge between Indonesia’s Sumatra and Borneo split at least 21,000 years ago but until now we’ve never known at what time the two speciated.

Compared to the two other great apes whose genomes have been sequenced, humans and chimps, the orangutan genome has changed much less. We’re still waiting on the gorilla genome to be finished. Oangutans originated some 12 million to 16 million years ago. Theoretically, orangutans have had more time to accumulate  genetic variation compared to humans and chimpanzees, which split into their own lineages 5 million to 6 million years ago. One would expect at least twice as much variation in the orangutan genome. However, in the study, a comparison of the three genomes shows that humans and chimpanzees have lost or gained new genes at twice the rate of orangutans.

Why’s that?

The paper explains that orangutan genomes have much fewer active retrotransposons than human and chimp genomes. Retrotransposons, or Alu elements, are essentially jumping genes, that replicate, and amplify then insert into different parts of the genome. The initial 2001 draft of the human genome reported that around 42% of the human genome is made up of retrotransposons. The authors of the orangutan paper illustrate that the human genome has ~5,000 Alu elements, whereas the orangutan genome has 250. This is significantly different. The authors write,

“Reduced Alu retroposition potentially limited the effect of a wide variety of repeat-driven mutational mechanisms in the orang-utan lineage that played a major role in restructuring other primate genomes.”

Personally, and this is my thinking here nothing the authors say — a common source of many human retrotransposons are to prehistoric viruses that integrated into our ancestral DNA. Viruses are communicable. Orangutans are the most solitary Great apes. I suspect they would have much less exposure to viruses because of their social structure, and thus much less chance of insertion of retrotransposon. Again, this is a hypothesis of mine, and I could be very wrong to think this.

Comparison of Orangutan to Great Ape Alu sequences

One last finding, I want to bring up was published in another paper released by the same team, but in the journal Genome Research. In the paper, “Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection,” coauthors of the previous study write that there are many similarities to the human and orangutan genome, much more similar than human to chimp, in fact. They suspect that could be because humans split from a common ancestor with chimps, of which both species had the same ancestral orangutan DNA. What remains curious is that humans and chimpanzees have evolved separately for millions of years. In the process, chimps for mysterious reasons lost some orangutan DNA that humans retained.

As often in sciences, many more questions arise from studies like these but I am excited that the age of genomics is shedding more light on our fellow primates!

Locke, D., Hillier, L., Warren, W., Worley, K., Nazareth, L., Muzny, D., Yang, S., Wang, Z., Chinwalla, A., Minx, P., Mitreva, M., Cook, L., Delehaunty, K., Fronick, C., Schmidt, H., Fulton, L., Fulton, R., Nelson, J., Magrini, V., Pohl, C., Graves, T., Markovic, C., Cree, A., Dinh, H., Hume, J., Kovar, C., Fowler, G., Lunter, G., Meader, S., Heger, A., Ponting, C., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Chen, L., Cheng, Z., Kidd, J., Eichler, E., White, S., Searle, S., Vilella, A., Chen, Y., Flicek, P., Ma, J., Raney, B., Suh, B., Burhans, R., Herrero, J., Haussler, D., Faria, R., Fernando, O., Darré, F., Farré, D., Gazave, E., Oliva, M., Navarro, A., Roberto, R., Capozzi, O., Archidiacono, N., Valle, G., Purgato, S., Rocchi, M., Konkel, M., Walker, J., Ullmer, B., Batzer, M., Smit, A., Hubley, R., Casola, C., Schrider, D., Hahn, M., Quesada, V., Puente, X., Ordoñez, G., López-Otín, C., Vinar, T., Brejova, B., Ratan, A., Harris, R., Miller, W., Kosiol, C., Lawson, H., Taliwal, V., Martins, A., Siepel, A., RoyChoudhury, A., Ma, X., Degenhardt, J., Bustamante, C., Gutenkunst, R., Mailund, T., Dutheil, J., Hobolth, A., Schierup, M., Ryder, O., Yoshinaga, Y., de Jong, P., Weinstock, G., Rogers, J., Mardis, E., Gibbs, R., & Wilson, R. (2011). Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes Nature, 469 (7331), 529-533 DOI: 10.1038/nature09687

Hobolth, A., Dutheil, J., Hawks, J., Schierup, M., & Mailund, T. (2011). Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection Genome Research DOI: 10.1101/gr.114751.110

Indonesia serves as a good example of a country where the landscape is changing and in turn affecting wildlife and people.  Forests are being cut down at alarming rates for agricultural demands such as the palm oil industry.  Palm plantations cover 3,107,986 hectares of Indonesia and the government plans to expand plantations by an extra four million hectares in Sumatra alone.

The monoculture of palm decreases wildlife habitat and food resources pushing wildlife closer to human settlements.  Continuous forest conversion for the purpose of plantation development, wood extraction, and the opening of community gardens has virtually eliminated all lowland habitats.  This forces animals like the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) endangered Sumatran elephant Elephas maximus sumatranus to forested slopes of mountain ranges where they more often will enter gardens and raid crops.

Many studies state that wildlife habitat destruction is the greatest cause for the occurrence of crop raiding.  At the same time like many parts of the world population growth is soaring which also increases wildlife and human niches to overlap.  Indonesia is a region of high human population density having the sixth largest human population in the world.  Lee & Priston (2005) state that there has been a spread of agriculture and human activity into areas that used to only be sustained by nonhuman primates and that most of the world’s subsistence farmers live in proximity to monkeys and apes.  Wildlife continually being forced to move will increase the scale and extent of encounters between humans and wildlife as well as crop raiding.

Journal articles were chosen specifically on crop raiding of all species in Indonesia but some references included general articles about Indonesia and other case examples in the world such as Africa.  Most crop raiding studies have been done in Africa.  Indonesia was an interesting location because of its high human population density, rapidly declining forests, and large variety of species that come into contact with crops.

Hockings (2009) describes crop raiding as wildlife venturing into cultivated areas to consume foods that humans see as belonging to them.  It can be an adaptation by wildlife to a loss of both natural habitat and wild foods and also an increase in access to new energy-rich food resources.  A study in four villages in North Sumatra showed that crop raiding by wildlife was reported by 94.9% of the interviewees as the single most important determinant of crop yields.  Thirteen vertebrates were reported causing damage to cultivars.  The most common were squirrels, porcupines, pigs, deer, elephants, and primates.  The ones perceived to be the most destructive were the primates.  Almost all families of nonhuman primates are shown by Lee & Priston (2005) to be crop raiders, cercopithecoids such as macaques being the largest culprit.  This is thought to be because they are intelligent opportunistic frugivores.  In addition, they often live near forest-edges.

Crop damage caused by raiding wildlife is a prevalent form of human-wildlife conflict along protected area boundaries and near logged areas on forest borders.  Primates tend to dominate as the major pests around reserves in Asia, responsible for over 70% of damage events.  Macaques on the Mentawai Islands comprise up to 35% of garden yield losses.  Macaques and other primates are clever, opportunistic, adaptable, and often manipulative.  Crop raiding is often an easy option for them.  In Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra wild elephants damaged 450,000 square meters of corn, rice, cassava, beans and other annual crops as well about 900 coconut, banana, and other perennial trees over an 18 month survey study of 13 villages.  Within a 12-year period elephants killed or injured 24 people near the park.

Specific culprits mentioned in the articles that raided Indonesian crops included wild boars (Sus scrofa), Thomas’ leaf monkeys (Presbytis thomasi), long tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), orangutans (Pongo abelii), tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana), Sumatran elephants (Elephas maximus sumatranus), Pagai Island macaques (Macaca pagensis), and sun bears (Helarctos malayanus).  Different species specialize in different crops and even plant parts of crops or development stages. Not just primates are known to cause severe damage.  Primates may be agile but elephants cause a great deal of damage due to their large size and nocturnal/crepuscular activity.  Raiding patterns can relate to population density, behavior of the species, wild food availability, rainfall, season, and proximity of farms to forests.  All these factors affect raiding frequency and intensity, which play a large role in the livelihoods of people and how they perceive wildlife.

Crop raiding can have large impacts on people such as human lives lost in human-elephant conflicts.  As seen from statistics above crop raiding can have large impacts on the livelihoods of farmers.  They experience devastating economic losses when crops are their only source of income.   Crop raiding impacts time spent away from tending crops in order to carry out mitigation techniques like guarding.  Schooling of children is disrupted in order to help guard family crops.  There is also risk of injuries and disease transmission from wildlife.

The perceptions of local people toward wildlife crop raiding species are extremely important for mitigating crop raiding and for wildlife conservation.  Areas with less human wildlife conflict and crop raiding as well as better management tended to perceive wildlife more positively and were more tolerant.  People said that they enjoyed seeing wildlife and having them around for their children especially if they were not damaging crops.  Riley & Priston (2010) observed farmers tolerating crop raiding because they saw macaques as helping them harvest crops like cashew nuts.  A Butonese farmer stated ,“ they eat only the fruit, letting the nut drop to the ground for us to collect.”  In the Mentawai Islands in Sumatra nonhuman primates are seen as “cousins” and magical sources of spirit and life force, and were believed to play integral roles in the governing system of Mentawai life cycle.  In Bali monkeys are treated with great tolerance because the Balinese culture emphasizes harmony between nature and mankind.  Tokean macaques have been regarded as kin and guardians although still feared.  Seeing the animals when they were not actively crop raiding resulted in more positive perceptions of the animals.

However, local people often reported being threatened both in terms of crop loss and personal safety.  People felt more at risk with larger species such as elephants and primates despite whether raidings were rare for that species.  For example, studies showed that people feared orangutans much more than smaller species and perceived them to cause the most damage even when it was not the case.  Articles continually showed fear of wildlife and often local legends of primates kidnapping women or children like that of the Sumatran orangutan which resulted in “an offspring which is restricted to the treetops and in the night you can still hear the cries of the this human-half-orangutan.”  If farmers and families felt they were in no physical threat they were more tolerant.

Mitigation techniques included fences, electric fences, dogs, chemical deterrents, taste aversion conditioning, playback alarms, guarding/chasing, noise/bells/shouting, contraception, painting individuals, stones/slingshots/spears, shooting/hunting, trapping/culling, translocation, change cropping patterns, and buffer zones.  All of which can be used in different contexts with advantages and disadvantages.  Shouting is often the most common.

Linkie et al. (2006) states that guarding is completely ineffective for a variety of species whereas Hedges & Gunaryadi (2010) concluded community-based guarding using conventional tools was more effective and less costly than sirens and chilli-grease fences in Way Kambas National Park.  However, the chillies could serve as an alternate elephant-resistant cash crop.  Lee & and Priston (2005) state traditional methods of mitigation are often ineffective because of dexterity and intelligence of primates.  Techniques largely depend on the crop raider and the region.  Many of the techniques are very costly and time consuming to farmers.  More research needs to be invested in monitoring techniques that are utilized.  Incorporating local input and views will have longstanding effective crop-raiding solutions.  Cooperation of local people is necessary to control pests and conserve wildlife.  Lee & Priston (2005) state that information about the attitudes and perceptions of wildlife as pests is a prerequisite to designing optimal and effective management schemes and introducing suitable preventative measures.

Education programs and community meetings that initiate management schemes are necessary.  Ecotourism can also be a used to supplement income to farmers and lessen tension between people and wildlife.  The value of forests to people and wildlife must be addressed.  Campaigns and policies lessening the rates of deforestation will decrease habitat overlap and crop raiding issues between people and wildlife.

As forests are cleared for demands in agricultural expansion and population growth continues to rise, human and wildlife habitats in Indonesia will continue overlapping.  Human wildlife interactions will increase as will the incidence of crop raiding.   Mitigation techniques have proved very difficult due to limited resources of famers and intelligence of animals.  Each location and species presents a particular scenario with different factors affecting the intensity and occurrence of crop raiding that will require unique methods or a combination of tactics.  Therefore, if crop raiding cannot be eradicated, it certainly must be minimized and managed to reduce conflict.  People’s perceptions are particularly important because crop raiding can reduce tolerance toward wildlife and affect actions taken by local farmers.  Local people play the key role in generating sustainable solutions and for conserving wildlife.