Tabebuia spp flowers
Pau D'Arco Summary
- Handroanthus impetiginosus = Tabebuia avellanadae (pau da'rco, lapacho) harvest is a major driver of deforestation of the Amazon.
- Use of the bark of any overharvested Amazonian tree as medicine is of dubious sustainability.
- There are ample alternatives available for this herb for any of its uses.
Destroying the Amazon for Pretty Floors
The main problem facing Handroanthus impetiginosus, the national tree of Paraguay, is overharvesting from the wild for its timber to make flooring and decking (for this purpose, it is commonly called ipê in industry). It is also used in cabinet making, for railway ties, telephone poles, wooden balls, and musical instruments. So while it is used as medicine, it is not clear that overharvesting for that purpose is particularly problematic. It is found in a very widespread area across the Amazon basin.
Pau d'arco trees do not grow in concentrated stands, but rather scattered through the rainforest. To access it requires building extensive logging roads and clearly much of the forest, and much of this land is then converted to agricultural use, preventing reforestation (Schulze, et al. 2008b). Deforestation in the Amazon is now significantly being driven by ipê harvest (Schulze, et al. 2008a). In five different model scenarios under current logging practices, in which 90% of mature trees can be legally harvested, juvenile populations could not recover within 60 years (Schulze, et al. 2008a). A study published in 2016 confirmed that once pau d'arco is cut once, it does not recover (Richardson and Peres 2016). The slow growth of the tree, shade-intolerance of its seedlings, and dispersed growth habit all contribute to the problems of recovery after overharvesting.
The closely related species H. serratifolius = Tabebuia serratifolia (yellow ipê, yellow lapacho) suffers a very similar fate; it is unclear to what extent it is used as medicine.
In 2022, all species of Handroanthus, Tabebuia, and Roseodendron (which are all sources for wood called ipê) were finally listed in appendix 2 of CITES. This was a major wake-up call for the devastation of these species, and as a result of the Amazonian rain forest in general. While this mechanism provides at best weak protection, it is further proof that these species should also be completely avoided as medicine until and unless a sustainable supply of medicinal material that supports local people can be identified or developed.
The failure to list this as threatened by the IUCN is likely the result of political interference or non-action, principally driven by the legal and illegal timber industry in Brazil. There will be continued delay in almost all the trees are extreminated and the species stands on the brink of total collapse and extinction. Buying and using lapacho for medicine from any source that is not directly verifiable as obtaining it sustainably from cultivated sources is only going to make these problems worse.
Pau d'arco trees do not grow in concentrated stands, but rather scattered through the rainforest. To access it requires building extensive logging roads and clearly much of the forest, and much of this land is then converted to agricultural use, preventing reforestation (Schulze, et al. 2008b). Deforestation in the Amazon is now significantly being driven by ipê harvest (Schulze, et al. 2008a). In five different model scenarios under current logging practices, in which 90% of mature trees can be legally harvested, juvenile populations could not recover within 60 years (Schulze, et al. 2008a). A study published in 2016 confirmed that once pau d'arco is cut once, it does not recover (Richardson and Peres 2016). The slow growth of the tree, shade-intolerance of its seedlings, and dispersed growth habit all contribute to the problems of recovery after overharvesting.
The closely related species H. serratifolius = Tabebuia serratifolia (yellow ipê, yellow lapacho) suffers a very similar fate; it is unclear to what extent it is used as medicine.
In 2022, all species of Handroanthus, Tabebuia, and Roseodendron (which are all sources for wood called ipê) were finally listed in appendix 2 of CITES. This was a major wake-up call for the devastation of these species, and as a result of the Amazonian rain forest in general. While this mechanism provides at best weak protection, it is further proof that these species should also be completely avoided as medicine until and unless a sustainable supply of medicinal material that supports local people can be identified or developed.
The failure to list this as threatened by the IUCN is likely the result of political interference or non-action, principally driven by the legal and illegal timber industry in Brazil. There will be continued delay in almost all the trees are extreminated and the species stands on the brink of total collapse and extinction. Buying and using lapacho for medicine from any source that is not directly verifiable as obtaining it sustainably from cultivated sources is only going to make these problems worse.
References
Richardson VA, Peres CA (2016) "Temporal decay in timber species composition and value in Amazonian logging concessions" PloS One 11(7): e0159035.
Schulze M, Grogan J, Landis RM, Vidal E (2008a) "How rare is too rare to harvest? Management challenges posted by timber species occurring at low densities in the Brazilian Amazon" Forest Ecol Manage 256:1443–1457.
Schulze M, Grogan J, Uhl C, et al. (2008b) "Evaluating ipê (Tabebuia, Bignoniaceae) logging in Amazonia: Sustainable management or catalyst for forest degradation?" Biol Conserv 141(8):2071–2085.
Schulze M, Grogan J, Landis RM, Vidal E (2008a) "How rare is too rare to harvest? Management challenges posted by timber species occurring at low densities in the Brazilian Amazon" Forest Ecol Manage 256:1443–1457.
Schulze M, Grogan J, Uhl C, et al. (2008b) "Evaluating ipê (Tabebuia, Bignoniaceae) logging in Amazonia: Sustainable management or catalyst for forest degradation?" Biol Conserv 141(8):2071–2085.