Open‐access platform to synthesize knowledge of ape conservation across sites

Despite the large body of literature on ape conservation, much of the data needed for evidence‐based conservation decision‐making is still not readily accessible and standardized, rendering cross‐site comparison difficult. To support knowledge synthesis and to complement the IUCN SSC Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys database, we created the A.P.E.S. Wiki (https://apeswiki.eva.mpg.de), an open‐access platform providing site‐level information on ape conservation status and context. The aim of this Wiki is to provide information and data about geographical ape locations, to curate information on individuals and organizations active in ape research and conservation, and to act as a tool to support collaboration between conservation practitioners, scientists, and other stakeholders. To illustrate the process and benefits of knowledge synthesis, we used the momentum of the update of the conservation action plan for western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) and began with this critically endangered taxon. First, we gathered information on 59 sites in West Africa from scientific publications, reports, and online sources. Information was compiled in a standardized format and can thus be summarized using a web scraping approach. We then asked experts working at those sites to review and complement the information (20 sites have been reviewed to date). We demonstrate the utility of the information available through the Wiki, for example, for studying species distribution. Importantly, as an open‐access platform and based on the well‐known wiki layout, the A.P.E.S. Wiki can contribute to direct and interactive information sharing and promote the efforts invested by the ape research and conservation community. The Section on Great Apes and the Section on Small Apes of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group will guide and support the expansion of the platform to all small and great ape taxa. Similar collaborative efforts can contribute to extending knowledge synthesis to all nonhuman primate species.


| INTRODUCTION
It is well established that conservation planning and practice should be informed by data and scientific evidence (Junker et al., 2020;Sunderland et al., 2009). To be effective, conservation practitioners and decision-makers need access to the best available up-to-date information on the status of a species (e.g., geographical distribution, abundance, and population trends), on human practices that are threatening a species, on suitable conservation interventions, and on barriers to implementing interventions. There are ongoing efforts to compile such information and make it more accessible to relevant audiences. Notably, a growing number of databases curate quantitative information on the status of multiple species, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (species occurrence data; GBIF, 2020), BioTIME (longitudinal data on species' abundances in assemblages, Dornelas et al., 2018), and TetraDENSITY (population density estimates; Santini et al., 2018). Similarly, information on threats, such as deforestation and fires, are available for many regions, particularly since accessibility of satellite data at high spatial and temporal resolution has improved through platforms such as Global Forest Watch (GFW, 2020). More recently, information on conservation activities has been compiled and made accessible, for example, by the Conservation Evidence Project (Conservation Evidence, 2019) and the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (Geldmann et al., 2019). Centralizing and standardizing information needed for conservation decision-making has been instrumental in informing conservation planning and policy, most notably the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Mace et al., 2008;Rodrigues et al., 2006), and the World Database on Protected Areas (Bingham et al., 2019).
Data gaps persist for many taxa, including detailed species occurrence and distribution data (Boakes et al., 2010), time-series of abundance estimates (Dornelaselas et al., 2018), or community composition (Peterson & Soberón, 2018). In addition, a lack of data on the types of conservation interventions implemented at specific locations persists, as available data typically focus on protected area creation and management (Fishburn et al., 2013;Geldmann et al., 2019). This gap leads to insufficient information on the effectiveness of conservation interventions for some taxa, including primates (Junker et al., 2020). However, additional data and information available in unpublished reports and from experts working at specific sites can contribute to closing some of these gaps (Corlett, 2011).

Networks of specialists, including the IUCN Species Survival
Commission and its Specialist Groups, Red List Authorities, task forces and conservation committees, regularly compile information for status assessments for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2020), conservation action plans, or CITES reports. Speciesand site-specific information is also important for setting conservation priorities and is often used by funding agencies to guide resource allocation. In addition, site-level information is needed by governmental agencies for environmental impact assessments, for example, for industrial project planning. However, when these data are not compiled and curated on a public platform, relevant information may be overlooked, resulting in unnecessary repetition of studies of the same area or species, or to biases and omissions in priority setting and funding allocation.
Small and great apes are well-studied threatened taxa (Wich & Marshall, 2016) with numerous stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, conservation practitioners from local and international NGOs, and researchers) working towards their protection. Collaboration between these actors and meta-analyses have been facilitated by the IUCN SSC Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys (A.P.E.S.) database (http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de), which curates quantitative field survey data on apes (Heinicke et al., 2019;Kühl et al., 2007). Primate Info Net (https://primate.wisc.edu/primate-info-net/) is another online resource that compiles information on primate taxonomy, ecology, threats, and possible solutions at the species level, but it is not spatially explicit (Jacobsen, 1994). Despite these initiatives, data gaps persist for apes, especially with regard to the information on threats undetectable from satellite data (e.g., hunting pressure, infectious diseases, degazettement of protected areas, civil conflict), as well as spatially explicit information on implemented interventions.  (Figure 1). The process of updating the conservation action plan for western chimpanzees (IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, 2020) mobilized researchers and conservation practitioners to compile current knowledge of this Critically Endangered taxon. We thus began work on the A.P.E.S. Wiki with this subspecies. Here we illustrate the process of information compilation, curation, and verification, and discuss how the platform can be used to support conservation decision-making.

| Process of knowledge synthesis
The A.P.E.S. Wiki is an online resource holding spatially explicit information on apes at the site-level scale at which conservation F I G U R E 1 Schematic representation of the A.P.E.S. Wiki. Filled dots represent people who have or are working in ape research and conservation, some of them members of the Section on Great Apes or the Section on Small Apes of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group. Experts can directly contribute information to the Wiki, which is then reviewed by the platform moderator, or via the platform moderator. Subnetworks of experts might coordinate their contribution to the Wiki interventions are typically implemented. We defined a site as an area that can be delineated as a management unit (e.g., a protected area). In some cases, a site was an area where either ape monitoring was taking place or where conservation interventions were being implemented, although not officially protected. The flexibility of the wiki format (details below) allows us to update or rectify site names, which might be especially relevant for sites that have not yet been officially designated. For each site, we searched for published articles and reports that contained relevant information. Many reports were accessed via the IUCN SSC A.P.E.S. database. We then searched for the site name on Google Scholar and Google Search to identify additional reports.

| Technical implementation
The format of a wiki has several advantages: wikis are easily found by online search engines, they can be continuously edited and updated, and due to the popularity of Wikipedia, many people are familiar with the general structure (Page, 2010). This format makes it easy for people to contribute and facilitates the emergence of a community collectively curating a data platform (Page, 2010).
Simultaneously, the wiki format enables enough flexibility to incorporate other types of information as needed, such as adding sections on new topics, as well as photos and maps. The simplicity and ease with which wiki pages can be created and modified means that they require little web development, which makes them inexpensive to set up and maintain. The trade-off of this simplicity is a lack of a database, but table data can be extracted from the page text and processed into spreadsheet format using web scraping (Wickham, 2016). Efforts to compile ecological information in wikis are well established, for example, the Coastal Wiki (Flanders Marine Institute, 2020) or Wikispecies (2020).
The information available on the A.P.E.S. Wiki is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. For each site, the Wiki summarizes the population status of the apes present, threats they face, conservation and research activities implemented, and impediments (i.e., challenges) to their conservation (Table 1). While satellite data are an important resource in providing information on threats to apes (e.g., in terms of forest loss, fires, expansion of human settlements, and roadbuilding), site-specific information from ground level is needed to describe threats not detectable by remote sensing. This includes threats such as hunting and infectious diseases, details of land use, and civil conflict. To allow for data comparison and integration with other platforms, we applied commonly-used classification systems, specifically the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2020) and the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2019). We always state the source of information (e.g., published study, report, or personal communication) and the method that was used to derive abundance estimates (e.g., line transect, model estimate, or informed guess) following Campbell et al. (2016). This enables users to consider the degree of uncertainty associated with estimates or other pieces of information.
The Wiki is open to anyone involved in ape conservation to contribute to an existing page or to start a page on a site not yet included in the Wiki. To ensure quality of the entries and transparency, we ask contributors to register an account using their real name, as is common practice in Science and in similar wiki projects (e.g., Coastal Wiki). A platform moderator oversees the process of ensuring quality of entries and that they are up-to-date.

| Data analysis
For each site, we compiled data into a standardized format to ensure consistency across sites and to enable users to extract information from each of the tables using a web scraping approach. An example of the R code for web scraping the tables is available in the Supporting Information. To illustrate how data compiled in the A.P.E.S.
Wiki can be used for applied analyses, we derived the proportion of chimpanzees that occurs at sites where a specific conservation activity is being implemented: environmental education. To this end, we overlaid the shapefiles of those sites for which environmental

| Results
We compiled information for 59 western chimpanzee sites in nine countries, including Burkina Faso where they are now thought to be extirpated (Ginn et al., 2013). These sites cover 26% (138,610 km 2 ) of the subspecies' total geographic range (524,100 km 2 ; Kühl et al., 2017). The Wiki also includes nationwide information for seven countries (Figure 2 Information on threats was recorded for 57 of the 59 sites. The most frequently cited threats were unsustainable levels of resource use (e.g., hunting and logging), agricultural activities, mining, and housing developments (Table 2). Uncontrolled fires, set for clearing land or for hunting, and allowed to burn into adjacent land, were reported frequently for sites described as savanna and dry forest habitats (13 of 18 sites). Climate change was cited three times as a local threat, specifically droughts and temperature extremes.
Conservation activities were reported for 46 of the 59 sites. The most frequently recorded conservation actions were designation of protected areas, followed by environmental education, antipoaching patrols, and provision of nonmonetary benefits to local communities (Table 3 and Figure 3). Impediments to conservation were reported for 25 sites, with a lack of funding and technical means (e.g., vehicles) being cited most frequently (Table 4).
As an example of how data from the A.P.E.S. Wiki could be used for analyses, we estimated that at least 15% of western chimpanzees (over 8000 individuals) occur at sites with environmental education activities (Figure 4), based on the reported information from these 59 sites, and the modeled western chimpanzee density distribution by Heinicke et al. (2019).

| Applications
The aim of the Wiki is threefold: to provide access to data, to provide information on who has and is implementing research and conservation activities at which sites, and to act as a communication platform for the ape conservation community.

| Data curation
The Wiki centralizes information on ape status, threats, implemented conservation activities, impediments to conservation, and ongoing research activities at the site-level. As spatially-explicit information on the conservation activities implemented is lacking so far (except for the existence of protected areas; Fishburn et al., Provide nonmonetary benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife 11

F I G U R E 2 Sites included in the A.P.E.S. Wiki for western chimpanzees. Numbers correspond to site names listed in the Supporting Information
Farm more intensively and effectively in selected areas and spare more natural land 11 Involve local community in primate research and conservation management 10 Regularly play TV and radio announcements to raise primate conservation awareness 7 Provide monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife 7 Implement monitoring surveillance strategies 7 Note: Naming and definition of conservation activities follows Junker et al. (2017).
F I G U R E 3 Sites in the A.P.E.S. Wiki where a conservation activity was reported for the categories (a) habitat protection, (b) education activity, (c) reducing biological resource use (e.g., antipoaching patrols), or (d) livelihood activity Strindberg et al. (2018) and Ordaz-Németh (in review) included binary site-level predictor variables in density distribution models.
However, as data from the A.P.E.S. Wiki are at the scale of sites, they can only be used for studies at a spatial scale matching the input data.
Another advantage is that data can be updated continuously and can easily be collated from the Wiki, as the tables have a standard format following well-established classification schemes, and we provide the R code for compiling these data. The two most frequently reported threats in the Wiki, hunting and agricultural activities, were also listed as the two highest-ranking threats in the conservation action plan for western chimpanzees (IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group, 2020). Although the groups of people contributing to both partially overlapped, the concordance between these two forms of data synthesis demonstrates that a data-based approach from a much larger group of contributors reached similar conclusions. At the same time, data retrieval from the Wiki requires less effort than expert consultation and is, therefore, more efficient.
As data from the Wiki can be constantly updated and are collated in the same place, future iterations of action plans, Red List Assessments, or CITES and other reports will be easier to produce. As subsequent updates of species assessments and conservation action plans are usually planned at 10-year intervals, the Wiki can provide a more timely picture of the situation at conservation sites and could facilitate progress monitoring on the implementation of action plans.
Data standardization and centralization across the entire range of a taxon can also be used to identify remaining information gaps. combining it with population trend data. The Wiki also helps conservation practitioners to find specific information from sites with environmental characteristics and human dimensions similar to those in which they work, allowing for lessons learned to be more applicable to a stakeholder's context of interest. Such information allows the study of the social-ecological conditions that may influence the effectiveness of specific conservation interventions or barriers that may hamper their effectiveness under certain circumstances.
Information from the Wiki could thus help in establishing a protocol to study the effectiveness of conservation interventions. Importantly, the Wiki can be used as a platform to document information on unsuccessful conservation interventions, and could in the future be expanded for sharing data collection protocols.
Calls for information sharing and collaboration in conservation are amplifying (Costello et al., 2015;Harvey et al., 2020), and platforms such as the A.P.E.S. Wiki can be an important step towards connecting scientists, conservation practitioners, and other stakeholders involved in ape conservation. Specifically, scientists can not only access up-to-date information for a given site in the Wiki but may also have the opportunity to showcase their work using this platform by, for example, providing information on the studies they have conducted (wiki section on research activities). Conservation practitioners may benefit by sharing information about ongoing or previous work they have initiated. We hope that small and local NGOs, who otherwise lack resources to promote their work online, will also benefit from this platform. These resources are likely to also interest people who want to find out more about apes and their conservation, such as graduate students and journalists who may otherwise lack the contacts to obtain this information directly. Consultants and private sector organizations could use information from the Wiki as a starting point for identifying potential impacts of a planned project on ape populations. Importantly, with its simple and flexible design, the Wiki can be expanded and amended as determined by the ape conservation community, for example, by the addition of new sections to each wiki page or new pages on more general topics.

| Limitations and challenges
To date, experts on only 20 of the 59 sites currently in the Wiki have responded to our invitation to verify the information we compiled from papers and reports. Thus, the results we report are preliminary, particularly for conservation activities implemented and impediments to conservation. However, the advantage of this platform format is that wiki entries can be updated and verified continuously and instantaneously. As the Wiki is now actively supported by the SGA and SSA, and continues to cover an increasing number of sites and ape species, it is likely that more experts will become interested in contributing and evaluating the information for the sites.
The main challenges for a data platform are to provide up-todate and correct information, and ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform. To promote the maintenance and use of the data, the support of a group of people that benefit by contributing, and institutional backing are required. As detailed above, there are multiple benefits for scientists and practitioners to contribute to the Wiki, and the support of the SGA and the SSA network is invaluable in promoting its use. Ensuring continued standardization and quality control of the data might require additional platform moderators, especially with the expansion of the Wiki to all ape taxa. Moderation responsibilities could be divided according to taxonomic groups (e.g., small apes), or regions (e.g., East Africa). Another challenge is securing sustained financial support for the data platform. However, data curation is likely to play a more prominent role in the future as conservation is increasingly relying on data-driven decision-making and might thus attract more funding (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2016).
A further concern for a data platform is public access to sensitive