MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408688380 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317862

Outcomes of orangutan wild-to-wild translocations reveal conservation and welfare risks

2025· article· en· W4408688380 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Sherman, Maria Voigt, Marc Ancrenaz, Erik Meijaard, Felicity Oram, Elizabeth A. Williamson, Anne E. Russon, David J. I. Seaman, Christine Caurant, Dirck Byler, Serge A. Wich

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceArcus FoundationAssociation of Zoos and Aquariums
KeywordsForagingBiologyHabitatChromosomal translocationPopulationZoologyEcologyDeforestation (computer science)Range (aeronautics)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild orangutans (Pongo spp.) are captured and moved (wild-to-wild translocated) primarily to prevent crop foraging or out of concern for orangutans' survival in fragmented habitat. Little is known about wild-to-wild translocation frequency, circumstances, and possible species conservation and individual welfare outcomes. We investigated orangutan wild-to-wild translocations in Indonesia from 2005 to 2022 using primarily data from public sources and consultation with practitioners. At least 988 wild orangutans were captured for translocation during the study period, including many reproductively valuable resident females and adult males removed from unprotected fragmented forests and forest patches. Data on health condition (n = 808) indicated 81.7% were reported as healthy at time of capture. Information on post-capture disposition (n = 268) showed that only 23% were translocated immediately. Mean estimated killing combined with reported translocation removals was calculated to affect 3.3% of orangutans in Kalimantan, and 11.6% in Sumatra, both higher than the threshold of mortality from human actions expected to drive populations to extinction. Negative impacts are likely compounded where multiple individuals are translocated from the same area, and for the Tapanuli orangutan (P. tapanuliensis), which has the smallest population and range of all orangutan species. Data on reasons for capture (n = 743) indicated most translocations (69%) were conducted to address crop foraging and orangutan presence in or around croplands and plantations. Forest cover analysis around 104 orangutan capture sites with high resolution spatial information indicated that deforestation levels in the year preceding capture were not significantly associated with likelihood of captures for translocation. To improve conservation outcomes, wild-to-wild translocations should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Most orangutans should instead be monitored and protected in situ by addressing conflicts and maintaining the forests, including forest fragments, they are using. When translocation is necessary, post-release survival and potential conservation impacts must be monitored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→