| Scientific Name | Protorhus longifolia (Bernh.) Engl. | Higher Classification | Dicotyledons | Family | ANACARDIACEAE | Synonyms | Rhus longifolia (Bernh.) Sond. | Common Names | Harpuisboom (a), Ikhubalo (x), Isifice (z), Isifico-sehlathi (z), Isifuce (x), Isifuze (z), Mutu-musolde (v), Purple Currant (e), Red Beech (e), Red Cape Beech (e), Rooibeukeblaar (a), Rooibeukehout (a), Rooiboekenhout (a), Rooimelkhout (e), Rooimelkhout (a), Umhlangothi (z), Umhluthi (z), Umhluthi (x), Umhluthi-wezinja (x), Umkhambathi (x), Umkhumiso (x), Umkhumizo (z), Umkomiso (x), Umphuza (z), Umuthibomvu (z), Unhlangothi (z), Uzintlwa (x) |
National Status | Status and Criteria | Least Concern | Assessment Date | 2020/02/03 | Assessor(s) | V.L. Williams, D. Raimondo, N.R. Crouch, A.B. Cunningham, C.R. Scott-Shaw, M. Lötter & A.M. Ngwenya | Justification | A widespread and common species that is not in danger of extinction. It is therefore assessed as Least Concern. |
Distribution | Endemism | Not endemic to South Africa | Provincial distribution | Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga | Range | This species is widespread across eastern South Africa and Swaziland. |
Habitat and Ecology | Major system | Terrestrial | Major habitats | Forest, Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, Savanna | Description | Plants grow in forest, forest margins, rock outcrops and riparian vegetation. |
Threats | | Bark is harvested for medicinal purposes and sold in the various muthi markets in the country. The demand varies: Cunningham (1988) estimated that over 29 bags of bark were sold annually in the Durban markets by 54 herb-traders, but its conservation status was indeterminate; in Johannesburg, less than 12% of muthi shop traders and Faraday market traders sold the species and the volumes present in the market were low (Williams 2007). In the Eastern Cape, however, Dold and Cocks (2002) reported the species to be the 7th most frequently sold plant part with 47% of traders selling the species. Furthermore, the volume sold was estimated to be 2700kg/annum (valued at R72,600) and that it was heavily traded and unsustainably harvested at the study sites investigated (Dold and Cocks 2002). |
Population | This species is quite common in Mpumalanga, where the impact of bark harvesting is not severe. It is also still common in KwaZulu-Natal, where subpopulations appear to be maintained by healthy recruitment.
| Population trend | Unknown |
Assessment History |
Taxon assessed |
Status and Criteria |
Citation/Red List version | | Protorhus longifolia (Bernh.) Engl. | Least Concern | Raimondo et al. (2009) | |
Bibliography | Boon, R. 2010. Pooley's Trees of eastern South Africa. Flora and Fauna Publications Trust, Durban.
Cunningham, A.B. 1988. An investigation of the herbal medicine trade in Natal/KwaZulu. Investigational Report No. 29. Institute of Natural Resources, Pietermaritzburg.
Dold, A.P. and Cocks, M.L. 2002. The trade in medicinal plants in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 98:589-597.
Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Schmidt, E., Lotter, M. and McCleland, W. 2002. Trees and shrubs of Mpumalanga and Kruger National Park. Jacana, Johannesburg.
Williams, V.L. 2007. The design of a risk assessment model to determine the impact of the herbal medicine trade on the Witwatersrand on resources of indigenous plant species. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
|
Citation | | Williams, V.L., Raimondo, D., Crouch, N.R., Cunningham, A.B., Scott-Shaw, C.R., Lötter, M. & Ngwenya, A.M. 2020. Protorhus longifolia (Bernh.) Engl. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version . Accessed on 2025/05/12 |
 Comment on this assessment
|
Search for images of Protorhus longifolia on iNaturalist
|
