ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2025
Traditional ecological knowledge for great ape conservation in Gabon.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional ecological knowledge (TEK) held by Indigenous communities is increasingly recognised as a cost effective, locally adapted complement to instrument-based wildlife monitoring. In southern Gabon, hunter trackers routinely distinguish chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes and western lowland gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla faeces in the field, yet the reliability of these identifications has never been rigorously tested.
methodsTwenty-two experienced Indigenous participants guided systematic surveys across ~ 10 000 ha of unprotected forest near Makatamangoy and Tébé. For every faecal sample encountered, collaborators reached a consensual species identification using their customary criteria (colour, odour, texture, composition, quantity, associated footprints, vegetation disturbance). Samples (n = 637) were preserved in RNAlater
resultsIndigenous knowledge correctly identified 633 of 637 samples (overall accuracy = 99.37%; κ = 0.987, p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 99.1% for chimpanzee and 99.0% for gorilla, while specificity exceeded 99.6% for both species. Seven primary criteria underpinned identifications; colour (100%) and odour (86.4%) were most frequently evoked. Twelve of 24 sub-criteria differed significantly between species. Chimpanzee faeces were more often described as brown-yellow, soft and abundant with faint heelprints, whereas gorilla faeces were typically black, fibrous, hard and accompanied by pronounced heel and fist prints plus flattened vegetation.
conclusionIndigenous trackers in Gabon demonstrate near-perfect accuracy in differentiating great ape faeces, validating TEK as a robust, low-cost tool for primate monitoring. Integrating this expertise into participatory conservation programmes could expand surveillance outside protected areas, enhance early detection of demographic or health changes, and strengthen community stewardship of threatened ape populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.