This book has described the conservation activities generated by seven African long-term research stations. They are the sites where research has been on-going for the longest period – the six oldest sites for chimpanzees, and the single oldest site for gorillas. In all of them the impacts on conservation appear to be diverse and positive, suggesting that the presence of researchers is an important predictor of conservation success. There is also informal evidence suggesting that the conservation status of these sites is better than comparable areas without such research. Gombe National Park, for example, was once surrounded by forest but is now an island of forest in a sea of agriculture. However, our sample of field stations is small, and various kinds of bias could temper the conclusion that long-term research has been responsible for conservation. In this chapter, therefore, we first summarize the conservation activities carried out by long-term researchers. We then suggest that the increased establishment and support of field stations might lead to improved conservation success in the future.

THE CONSERVATION IMPACTS OF LONG-TERM RESEARCH

Conservation consequences emanating from long-term research are diverse both within and across sites. Within sites, the variety is illustrated by the case considered in the greatest detail, Makerere University Biological Field Station (MUBFS) at Kibale National Park in Uganda. Across sites, researchers from the six other sites considered in this book (Bossou, Budongo, Gombe, Mahale, Taï, Virungas) report on major activities that vary from ecotourism and education to community-based conservation projects.

In 1871 Charles Darwin feared for the future of great apes. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries,” he wrote, “the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated” (Darwin, 1871, p. 891). While Darwin's prognostication might seem gloomy, to those concerned with the conservation of great apes Darwin seems optimistic to have anticipated extinction in centuries rather than decades. The contemporary threats to tropical forests are so numerous and intense that most conservationists would be delighted if they could be assured that orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) would all still survive in the wild in 2100. Unfortunately, however, even such a modest hope may be unrealistic. The three most threatened species, orangutans, bonobos, and gorillas, are widely considered as candidates for global extinction within the next 100 years (Beck et al., 2001; Miles, 2005). If they go, so will large numbers of other animals and plants.

The problem would be bad enough if the scale of the threats to which tropical forests are currently exposed were to continue unchanged in the near future. All indications are, however, that the challenges of maintaining forests are going to grow enormously. This means that, if the tidal wave of forest destruction is ever to be turned back, a critical question is how much will be lost before then. What we do now will substantially affect the answer.

Most animals rarely kill their own. Among non-human primates, for example, many species live in social groups and fight with their neighbours. Battles involve loud calls, displays, chases and occasional grapples – just enough for the larger or stronger group to convince its opponent to retreat. Yet although inter-group contests may be intense and frequent, and although they may determine access to critical resources, they hardly ever lead to death. For most primates the goal is to win or to retreat without being damaged.

But humans often aim to kill. So why is our species different? Why do we regularly and deliberately kill our own kind?

At the simplest level there are two kinds of answer: killing is either unnatural or natural. The contrasting positions are encapsulated by the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, who have become icons for opposing views of human nature. For Rousseau, we are an essentially peaceful species. For Hobbes, war is our natural state. As we will see, both positions can be criticized.

Rousseau's thinking was dominated by the concept of the ‘noble savage’. He was so impressed by reports of people's spontaneous tendency to care for each other that he claimed conflict was absent in a state of nature. ‘With passions so tame’, he wrote, ‘and so salutary a curb, men, rather wild than wicked, and more attentive to guard against mischief than to do any to other animals, were not exposed to any dangerous dissensions’.

INTRODUCTION

Chimpanzees and bonobos are generally similar in their adult heterosexual behavior. In both species, copulations are largely restricted to females with maximally tumescent swellings (Furuichi 1987; Wallis 1992; Takahata et al. 1996). ‘Group mating’ is the predominant pattern. Rates of copulation vary, but there tend to be several hundred copulations per conception (Goodall 1986; Kano 1992). Furthermore, in both species the relationship between male rank and copulation rate varies in similar ways depending on group composition. Sometimes there is no relationship between a male's dominance rank and his copulation rate (e.g. Gombe chimpanzees: Tutin 1979; Mahale chimpanzees (1980–82,1991): Hasegawa & Hiraiwa-Hasegawa 1990; Nishida 1997; Taï chimpanzees: Boesch & Boesch-Achermann 2000; Wamba bonobos, E1 and E2 1986, P 1988: Takahata et al. 1996). However when a community or party contains few adult males in a stable hierarchy, higher-ranking adult males can achieve more copulations than lower-ranking males (Gombe chimpanzees in 1973–74: Goodall 1986; Mahale chimpanzees in 1992, Nishida 1997; Wamba E-group bonobos 1979: Kano 1996; Lomako bonobos: Gerloff et al. 1999). Dominant males then gain their advantage partly by interfering, at least occasionally, with subordinates' copulations (e.g. in 7% of bonobo copulations, Kano 1992).

Despite such similarities, heterosexual activity also varies in significant ways. A prominent example is the number of sexual cycles per conception, which ranges from an average of 3.6 for Gombe mothers to an average of 29.2 for Taï mothers. Such differences in sexual cycling have no relation to reproductive rates since the population interbirth intervals are similar in different sites (Takahata et al. 1996; Boesch and Boesch-Achermann 2000; Knott 2001).

Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, and bonobos, Pan paniscus, differ greatly in their social relationships and psychology, as many chapters in this book show (e.g. Takahata et al., Chapter 11; de Waal, Chapter 12). Why they do so is not understood. Yet since these are the two closest relatives of humans, and since each species has a different set of similarities with humans, the question is especially important by virtue of its relevance to human behavior. Why, for instance, do humans and chimpanzees have similarly violent intergroup aggression? The answer will likely depend on understanding why bonobos do not.

In general, bonobos have more relaxed relationships than chimpanzees, with a more pervasive web of alliances or friendships linking community members, especially adult females. This set of differences is thought to depend crucially on the ecological costs of grouping. Thus, friendly social relationships among female bonobos are thought to be possible because their parties are relatively stable, with individuals rarely forced to be solitary. Equivalently friendly relationships among female chimpanzees, on the other hand, are prohibited because parties are regularly forced to fragment, as a result of feeding competition when fruits are scarce (Chapman et al., 1994). Over evolutionary time, such differences have led to differences in species psychology (e.g. Wrangham, 1993).

Resource-based sociality is the only framework so far proposed to explain the ultimate sources of behavioral differences between the two species.