Enterolobium schomburgkii LC Taxonomic Authority: (Benth.) Benth.  Global Assessment  Regional Assessment Region: Global  Endemic to region

Upper Level Kingdom: PLANTAE Phylum: TRACHEOPHYTA Class: MAGNOLIOPSIDA Order: Family: LEGUMINOSAE Lower Level Taxonomy Rank: Infra- rank name:  Hybrid Subpopulation: Authority:

General Information Distribution Enterolobium schomburgkii is native to South and Central America.

Range Size Elevation Biogeographic Realm Area of Occupancy: Upper limit: 200  Afrotropical Extent of Occurrence: Lower limit: 100  Antarctic Map Status: Depth  Australasian Upper limit:  Neotropical Lower limit:  Oceanian Depth Zones  Palearctic  Shallow photic  Bathyl  Hadal  Indomalayan  Photic  Abyssal  Nearctic Population This taxon is considered to be common.

Total Population Size Minimum Population Size: Maximum Population Size: Habitat and Ecology E. schomburgkii is a tree between 10-50m that inhabits non-flooded evergreen forest.

System Movement pattern Crop Wild Relative  Terrestrial  Freshwater  Nomadic  Congregatory/Dispersive  Is the species a wild relative of a crop?  Marine  Migratory  Altitudinally migrant

Growth From Definition Tree - size unknow Tree (any size), also termed a Phanerophyte (>1m) Growth From Definition

Threats This taxon is not considered to be threatened or in decline.

Past Present Future 13 None  Conservation Measures There are a number of protected areas within the range of this taxon, but seeds have yet to be collected and stored as an ex- situ conservation method.

In Place Needed 3 Research actions  3.2 Population numbers and range  3.3 Biology and Ecology  3.4 Habitat status  3.5 Threats  3.6 Uses and harvest levels  3.7 Cultural relevance  3.8 Conservation measures  3.9 Trends/Monitoring  4 Habitat and site-based actions  4.4 Protected areas  5 Species-based actions  5.7 Ex situ conservation actions  5.7.2 Genome resource bank 

Countries of Occurrence

PRESENCE ORIGIN Year Breeding Non- Passage Possibly ExtinctPresence Native Introduced Re- Vagrant Origin Round Season breeding migrant extinct uncertain Introduced uncertain only season only Bolivia    Brazil    Colombia    Costa Rica    French Guiana    Guatemala    Guyana    Mexico    Nicaragua    Panama    Peru    Suriname    Venezuela   

General Habitats Score Description Major Importance 1 Forest 1UnsetSuitable 1.6 Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland1Unset Suitable

Species Utilisation  Species is not utilised at all

Purpose / Type of Use Subsistence National International 11. Other household goods  9. Construction/structural materials 

Trend in the level of wild offtake/harvest in relation to total wild population numbers over the last five years: Trend in the amount of offtake/harvest produced through domestication/cultivation over the last five years: CITES status: Not listed

IUCN Red Listing Red List Assessment:(using 2001 IUCN system) Least Concern (LC)

Red List Criteria: Date Last Seen (only for EX, EW or Possibly EX species): Is the species Possibly Extinct?  Possibly Extinct Candidate?  Rationale for the Red List Assessment This taxon is common and widespread in Central and northern South America and is not considered to be threatened or in decline. This taxon is thus rated as Least Concern. Reason(s) for Change in Red List Category from the Previous Assessment:  Genuine Change  Nongenuine Change  No Change  Genuine (recent)  New information  Taxonomy  Same category  Genuine (since first assessment)  Knowledge of Criteria  Criteria Revisio and criteria  Incorrect data used  Other  Same category but previously change in criteria Current Population Trend: Stable Date of Assessment: 24/08/2010 Name(s) of the Assessor(s): Groom, A. Evaluator(s): Notes:

% population decline in the past: Time period over which the past decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations): % population decline in the future: Time period over which the future decline has been measured for applying Criterion A or C1 (in years or generations): Number of Locations: Severely Fragmented: Number of Mature Individuals:

Bibliography Barroso, G.M., 1965, Leguminosas da Guanabara., Arch. Jard. Bot. Rio de Janeiro, 109-177, , Brako, L. and Zarucchi, J. L., 1993, Catalogue of the Flowering and Gymnosperms of Peru, 45 nosperms of Peru, Vol 45, , Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard., Breedlove, D. E., 1986., Flora de Chiapas., Listados Floríst. México i–v, 1–246., , , Britton,N.L. & Killip,E.P., 1936, Mimosaceae and Caesalpiniaceae of Colombia. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 35(3): 101–208., , , Ducke, A., 1949, Notas Flora Neotropica-II:Ama, Bol.Tecn.Inst.Agron.N.18:1-248, , , Hokche, O., Berry, P.E. & Huber, O., 2008, Nuev. Cat. Fl. Vas. Venezuela 1–860., , , International Legume Database and Information Service, 2005, Enterolobium schomburgkii07/05/2010, , , Lewis, G.P., 1987, Legumes of Bahia, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, , , Lewis,G.P. & Owen,P.E., 1989, Legumes Ilha de Maraca, , , Macbride, J.F., 1943, Flora of Peru: Leguminosaa, Publ.Field Mus.Nat.Hist.,Bot.Ser.13(3/1):1-506, , , Sousa S.M.,Ricker, M. & Hernández, H.M., 2003, An index for the tree species of the family Leguminosae in Mexico., Harvard Pap. Bot.2, 381–398, , Standley, P.C. and Steyermark, J.A., 1946, Leguminosae. Flora of Guatemala., Fieldiana, Bot.5, 1–368, , Stevens, W. D.; C. Ulloa, U., A. Pool & Montiel, O. M., 2001, Flora de Nicaragua., Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. i–xlii, 1–2666., , Steyermark, J.; Berry, P.E. & Holst, K., 2001, Flora of the Venezuelan Guyana, Vol 6, Liliaceae-Myrsinaceae, , Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St Louis