What’s in a name for timber? Trade documentation and conservation prioritization in four tropical timber species imported to the United States

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2025.100258

Abstract

Abstract:

The tropical timber trade faces significant sustainability challenges, including deforestation, illegal logging, and inadequate traceability. Inaccurate species identification further complicates these issues, leading to unreliable trade statistics and enforcement challenges. The Lacey Act Amendment (LAA) of 2008 mandated declaring scientific names for timber shipments entering the United States. Therefore, this study assessed the implementation of the LAA using data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for 4 tropical timber species including Keruing, Meranti, Acajou d’Afrique, and Mahogany from Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Philippines, Cameroon, Ghana, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, and Bolivia, with high rates of illegal logging. This study showed that the United States imported 49 species of Keruing species group, 126 species of Meranti species group, 6 species of Acajou d’Afrique species group, and 2 species of Mahogany species group during 2017-2023. Despite mandatory declarations, approximately 14.60% of timber import records lacked species-specific names. Conservation assessments identified 37 species of Keruing species group and 68 species of Meranti species group listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but absent from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Moreover, the principal component analysis (PCA) indicated that the first principal component was primarily driven by import value and import volume, reflecting the overall trade prominence, while the second principal component captured temporal pattern through import year. Further, this study developed a Trade-Adjusted Conservation Priority Index (TACPI) that integrated conservation status with trade prominence to prioritize species at risk. Species with high TACPI scores, such as Dipterocarpus coriaceus and Shorea balangeran, were identified as urgently needing regulatory focus. To strengthen sustainable trade and conservation, it is recommended to enforce the LAA more strictly, expand timber identification technologies, and mandate key supplier countries, who are the CITES’ signatories, to list high-risk species in the CITES appendices.

Key words: Tropical timber trade, Principal component analysis (PCA), Trade-Adjusted Conservation Priority Index (TACPI), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

Mandira POKHAREL, René Henri GERMAIN, John Eric WAGNER, Susan Elizabeth ANAGNOST, William Bradford SMITH. What’s in a name for timber? Trade documentation and conservation prioritization in four tropical timber species imported to the United States[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2025, 6(5): 100258.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Species list of the Dipterocarpus genus that is being imported under the name of Keruing species group."

No.	Scientific name	IUCN conservation status	GLARS	Normalized PC1 score	TACPI
1	Dipterocarpus coriaceus	Critically endangered	0.50	79.93	39.97
2	Dipterocarpus elongatus	Critically endangered	0.50	56.69	28.34
3	Dipterocarpus kerrii	Endangered	0.20	75.77	15.15
4	Dipterocarpus cornutus	Critically endangered	0.50	29.30	14.65
5	Dipterocarpus grandiflorus	Endangered	0.20	68.56	13.71
6	Dipterocarpus baudii	Vulnerable	0.10	73.67	7.37
7	Dipterocarpus costatus	Vulnerable	0.10	67.08	6.71
8	Dipterocarpus turbinatus	Vulnerable	0.10	63.38	6.34
9	Dipterocarpus cinereus	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
10	Dipterocarpus cuspidatus	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
11	Dipterocarpus fagineus	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
12	Dipterocarpus hispidus	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
13	Dipterocarpus lamellatus	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
14	Dipterocarpus littoralis	Critically endangered	0.50	12.61	6.31
15	Dipterocarpus concavus	Critically endangered	0.50	6.11	3.05
16	Dipterocarpus tempehes	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
17	Dipterocarpus semivestitus	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
18	Dipterocarpus conformis	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
19	Dipterocarpus geniculatus	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
20	Dipterocarpus hasseltii	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
21	Dipterocarpus ochraceus	Endangered	0.20	12.61	2.52
22	Dipterocarpus sarawakensis	Vulnerable	0.10	12.61	1.26
23	Dipterocarpus stellatus	Vulnerable	0.10	12.61	1.26
24	Dipterocarpus alatus	Vulnerable	0.10	12.61	1.26
25	Dipterocarpus pachyphyllus	Vulnerable	0.10	12.61	1.26
26	Dipterocarpus palembanicus	Vulnerable	0.10	12.61	1.26
27	Dipterocarpus mundus	Vulnerable	0.10	12.57	1.26
28	Dipterocarpus rotundifolius	Endangered	0.20	6.11	1.22
29	Dipterocarpus sublamellatus	Endangered	0.20	6.11	1.22
30	Dipterocarpus acutangulus	Endangered	0.20	6.11	1.22
31	Dipterocarpus kunstleri	Critically endangered	0.50	2.39	1.20
32	Dipterocarpus chartaceus	Endangered	0.20	5.50	1.10
33	Dipterocarpus gracilis	Vulnerable	0.10	6.69	0.67
34	Dipterocarpus crinitus	Vulnerable	0.10	6.11	0.61
35	Dipterocarpus applanatus	Vulnerable	0.10	5.92	0.59
36	Dipterocarpus dyeri	Endangered	0.20	2.39	0.48
37	Dipterocarpus retusus	Endangered	0.20	1.00	0.20
38	Dipterocarpus borneensis	Near threatened	-	36.73	-
39	Dipterocarpus caudatus	Least concern	-	100.00	-
40	Dipterocarpus caudiferus (Dipterocarpus kutaianus)	Near threatened	-	8.02	-
41	Dipterocarpus confertus	Near threatened	-	2.39	-
42	Dipterocarpus eurhynchus	Near threatened	-	12.61	-
43	Dipterocarpus globosus	Least concern	-	12.61	-
44	Dipterocarpus humeratus	Near threatened	-	12.61	-
45	Dipterocarpus lowii	Near threatened	-	2.39	-
46	Dipterocarpus nudus	Least concern	-	12.66	-
47	Dipterocarpus oblongifolius	Least concern	-	60.01	-
48	Dipterocarpus obtusifolius	Near threatened	-	6.11	-
49	Dipterocarpus verrucosus	Near threatened	-	14.97	-

Table 3

Table 4

Species list of the Shorea genus that is being imported under the name of Meranti species group."

No.	Scientific name	IUCN conservation status	GLARS	Normalized PC1 score	TACPI
1	Shorea balangeran	Vulnerable	0.10	100.00	10.00
2	Shorea platycarpa	Endangered	0.20	49.17	9.83
3	Shorea johorensis	Vulnerable	0.10	68.30	6.83
4	Shorea guiso	Vulnerable	0.10	61.95	6.19
5	Shorea inaequilateralis	Endangered	0.20	30.47	6.09
6	Shorea foraminifera	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
7	Shorea iliasii	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
8	Shorea induplicata	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
9	Shorea macrantha	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
10	Shorea pallescens	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
11	Shorea revoluta	Critically endangered	0.50	10.49	5.24
12	Shorea laevis	Vulnerable	0.10	40.89	4.09
13	Shorea collina (Shorea angustiloba)	Vulnerable	0.10	39.29	3.93
14	Shorea uliginosa	Endangered	0.20	19.63	3.93
15	Shorea pachyphylla	Endangered	0.20	16.90	3.38
16	Shorea faguetiana	Endangered	0.20	15.57	3.11
17	Shorea materialis	Endangered	0.20	15.26	3.05
18	Shorea ochracea	Vulnerable	0.10	30.45	3.04
19	Shorea mecistopteryx	Vulnerable	0.10	30.06	3.01
20	Shorea javanica	Endangered	0.20	11.64	2.33
21	Shorea conica	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
22	Shorea cordata	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
23	Shorea henryana (Shorea sericeiflora)	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
24	Shorea longisperma	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
25	Shorea pallidifolia	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
26	Shorea splendida	Endangered	0.20	10.49	2.10
27	Shorea teysmanniana	Critically endangered	0.50	3.90	1.95
28	Shorea sumatrana	Endangered	0.20	9.30	1.86
29	Shorea collaris	Vulnerable	0.10	17.71	1.77
30	Shorea bracteolata	Endangered	0.20	8.47	1.69
31	Shorea vir escens	Endangered	0.20	8.47	1.69
32	Shorea praestans	Critically endangered	0.50	3.32	1.66
33	Shorea rugosa	Vulnerable	0.10	11.72	1.17
34	Shorea andulensis	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
35	Shorea bentongensis	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
36	Shorea blumutensis	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
37	Shorea bullata	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
38	Shorea cuspidata	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
39	Shorea ferruginea	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
40	Shorea flaviflora	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
41	Shorea flemmichii	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
42	Shorea longiflora	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
43	Shorea macrobalanos	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
44	Shorea mujongensis	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
45	Shorea obovoidea	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
46	Shorea roxburghii	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
47	Shorea rubella	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
48	Shorea singkawang	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
49	Shorea subcylindrica	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
50	Shorea thorelii	Vulnerable	0.10	10.49	1.05
51	Shorea albida	Vulnerable	0.10	10.48	1.05
52	Shorea gibbosa	Vulnerable	0.10	10.12	1.01
53	Shorea furfuracea	Vulnerable	0.10	9.89	0.99
54	Shorea selanica	Vulnerable	0.10	9.66	0.97
55	Shorea atrinervosa	Vulnerable	0.10	9.30	0.93
56	Shorea dealbata	Vulnerable	0.10	9.30	0.93
57	Shorea ochrophloia	Vulnerable	0.10	9.30	0.93
58	Shorea foxworthyi	Vulnerable	0.10	8.62	0.86
59	Shorea confusa	Vulnerable	0.10	8.47	0.85
60	Shorea smithiana	Vulnerable	0.10	8.47	0.85
61	Shorea lumutensis	Critically endangered	0.50	1.00	0.50
62	Shorea quadrinervis	Vulnerable	0.10	3.65	0.37
63	Shorea retinodes	Vulnerable	0.10	3.61	0.36
64	Shorea resinosa	Vulnerable	0.10	3.32	0.33
65	Shorea retusa	Vulnerable	0.10	3.32	0.33
66	Shorea astylosa	Endangered	0.20	1.00	0.20
67	Shorea glauca	Endangered	0.20	1.00	0.20
68	Shorea falciferoides	Vulnerable	0.10	1.00	0.10
69	Shorea acuminata	Least concern	-	59.62	-
70	Shorea acuta	Least concern	-	10.48	-
71	Shorea agamii	Near threatened	-	10.48	-
72	Shorea almon	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
73	Shorea amplexicaulis	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
74	Shorea angustifolia	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
75	Shorea argentifolia	Least concern	-	39.38	-
76	Shorea assamica	Least concern	-	30.33	-
77	Shorea balanocarpoides	Least concern	-	10.49	-
78	Shorea beccariana	Least concern	-	10.49	-
79	Shorea ciliata	Near threatened	-	1.00	-
80	Shorea contorta	Least concern	-	10.49	-
81	Shorea coriacea	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
82	Shorea curtisii	Least concern	-	40.31	-
83	Shorea dasyphylla	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
84	Shorea exelliptica	Near threatened	-	9.30	-
85	Shorea faguetioides	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
86	Shorea fallax	Least concern	-	10.49	-
87	Shorea hopeifolia	Least concern	-	8.47	-
88	Shorea kudatensis	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
89	Shorea kunstleri	Least concern	-	30.58	-
90	Shorea laxa	Least concern	-	10.49	-
91	Shorea lepidota	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
92	Shorea leprosula	Near threatened	-	52.44	-
93	Shorea macrophylla	Least concern	-	8.47	-
94	Shorea macroptera	Least concern	-	8.26	-
95	Shorea maxima	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
96	Shorea maxwelliana	Near threatened	-	9.30	-
97	Shorea monticola	Least concern	-	10.49	-
98	Shorea multiflora	Least concern	-	9.17	-
99	Shorea myrionerva	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
100	Shorea negrosensis	Least concern	-	7.26	-
101	Shorea obtusa	Near threatened	-	8.47	-
102	Shorea ovalis (Shorea eximia)	Least concern	-	37.62	-
103	Shorea ovata (Shorea agsaboensis)	Least concern	-	8.47	-
104	Shorea palembanica (Shorea brachyptera)	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
105	Shorea palosapis	Least concern	-	86.58	-
106	Shorea parvifolia	Least concern	-	58.36	-
107	Shorea parvistipulata	Least concern	-	10.49	-
108	Shorea patoiensis	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
109	Shorea pauciflora	Near threatened	-	55.10	-
110	Shorea pilosa	Near threatened	-	3.32	-
111	Shorea pinanga	Least concern	-	3.65	-
112	Shorea platyclados	Near threatened	-	40.40	-
113	Shorea polita	Least concern	-	3.32	-
114	Shorea polysperma	Least concern	-	3.32	-
115	Shorea pubistyla	Least concern	-	3.32	-
116	Shorea robusta	Least concern	-	21.04	-
117	Shorea rubra	Near threatened	-	11.49	-
118	Shorea sagittata	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
119	Shorea scaberrima	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
120	Shorea scabrida	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
121	Shorea seminis (Shorea borneensis)	Least concern	-	1.00	-
122	Shorea siamensis	Least concern	-	17.62	-
123	Shorea stenoptera	Near threatened	-	8.47	-
124	Shorea venulosa	Least concern	-	10.49	-
125	Shorea waltoni	Near threatened	-	10.49	-
126	Shorea xanthophylla	Near threatened	-	10.48	-

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

References 73

[1]	Abdi, H., Williams, L.J., 2010. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs) Computational Statistics. 2(4), 433-459.
[2]	Akçakaya, H.R., Butchart, S.H.M., Mace, G.M., et al., 2006. Use and misuse of the IUCN Red List Criteria in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity. Glob. Change Biol. 12(11), 2037-2043.
[3]	Andermann, T., Faurby, S., Cooke, R., et al., 2021. iucn_sim: a new program to simulate future extinctions based on IUCN threat status. Ecography. 44(2), 162-176. doi: 10.1111/ecog.05110
[4]	Anderson, J.L., 2004. Nature’s currency: The Atlantic Mahogany trade and the commodification of nature in the eighteenth century. Early Am. Stud. 2, 47-80.
[5]	Ashton, P.S., Heckenhauer, J., 2022. Tribe Shoreae (Dipterocarpaceae subfamily Dipterocarpoideae) finally dissected. Kew Bull. 77, 885-903.
[6]	Bennett, B.C., Balick, M.J., 2014. Does the name really matter? The importance of botanical nomenclature and plant taxonomy in biomedical research. J. Ethnopharmacol. 152(3), 387-392. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.042 pmid: 24321863
[7]	Bisschop, L., 2012. Out of the woods: the illegal trade in tropical timber and a European trade hub. Glob. Crime. 13(3), 191-212.
[8]	Bösch, M., 2021. Institutional quality, economic development and illegal logging: a quantitative cross-national analysis. Eur. J. For. Res. 140, 1049-1064.
[9]	Challender, D.W.S., Cremona, P.J., Malsch, K., et al., 2023. Identifying species likely threatened by international trade on the IUCN Red List can inform CITES trade measures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1211-1220. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02115-8 pmid: 37414949
[10]	CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), 2024a. The CITES Appendices. [2024-09-29]. https://cites.org/eng/app/index.php.
[11]	CITES, 2024b. List of Contracting Parties. [2024-09-11]. https://cites.org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php.
[12]	Contreras-Hermosilla, A., Doornbosch, R., Lodge, M., 2007. The Economics of Illegal Logging and Associated Trade. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 17.
[13]	Dormontt, E.E., Boner, M., Braun, B., et al., 2015. Forensic timber identification: It’s time to integrate disciplines to combat illegal logging. Biol. Conserv. 191, 790-798.
[14]	Ehrenberg-Azcárate, F., Peña-Claros, M., 2020. Twenty years of forest management certification in the tropics: Major trends through time and among continents. Forest Policy Econ. 111, 102050, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102050.
[15]	Forrer, J., Mo, K., 2013. From certification to supply chain strategy: An analytical framework for enhancing tropical forest governance. Organ. Environ. 26(3), 260-280.
[16]	Frank, E.G., Wilcove, D.S., 2019. Long delays in banning trade in threatened species. Science. 363(6428), 686-688. doi: 10.1126/science.aav4013 pmid: 30765549
[17]	Freedom of Information Act, 2024. How to Make a FOIA Request. [2024-10-18]. https://www.foia.gov/how-to.html.
[18]	Game, E.T., Kareiva, P., Possingham, H.P., 2013. Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conserv. Biol. 27(3), 480-485. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12051 pmid: 23565990
[19]	Gan, J.B., McCarl, B.A., 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol. Econ. 64(2), 423-432.
[20]	Gan, J.B., Cashore, B., Stone, M.W., 2013. Impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment and the Voluntary Partnership Agreements on illegal logging: implications for global forest governance. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research. 5(4), 209-226.
[21]	Gasson, P.E., Lancaster, C.A., Young, R., et al., 2021. WorldForestID: Addressing the need for standardized wood reference collections to support authentication analysis technologies; a way forward for checking the origin and identity of traded timber. Plants People Planet. 3(2), 130-141. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10164
[22]	Hartigan-O’Connor, E., 2013. Mahogany: The costs of luxury in early America. Early Am. Lit. 48(2), 509-513.
[23]	Höltken, A.M., Schröder, H., Wischnewski, N., et al., 2012. Development of DNA-based methods to identify CITES-protected timber species: a case study in the Meliaceae family. Holzforschung. 66, 97-104.
[24]	Horne, J., 2013. A Guide to Lesser Known Tropical Timber Species. Gland: World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Global Forest & Trade Network, 2-88.
[25]	HTS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule), 2024. HS Code and Tariff Index. [2024-10-18]. https://www.htshub.com/us-hs/detail/4407.
[26]	Hu, J.L., Ci, X.Q., Liu, Z.F., et al., 2022. Assessing candidate DNA barcodes for Chinese and internationally traded timber species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 22(4), 1478-1492.
[27]	Innes, J.L., 2010. Madagascar rosewood, illegal logging and the tropical timber trade. Madagascar Conservation & Development. 5(1), 57335, doi: 10.4314/mcd.v5i1.57335.
[28]	International Tropical Timber Technical Association, 2016. Tropical Timber Nomenclature. Paris: International Tropical Timber Technical Association.
[29]	International Tropical Timber Technical Association, 2023. Wood Names and Designations. Paris: International Tropical Timber Technical Association, 1-3.
[30]	IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 2024a. More than One in Three Tree Species Worldwide Faces Extinction-IUCN Red List. [2024-10-28]. https://iucn.org/press-release/202410/more-one-three-tree-species-worldwide-faces-extinction-iucn-red-list.
[31]	IUCN, 2024b. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [2024-09-29]. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en.
[32]	IUCN, 2024c. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. [2024-09-07]. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines.
[33]	Jiao, L.C., Lu, Y., He, T., et al., 2020. DNA barcoding for wood identification: global review of the last decade and future perspective. IAWA J. 41(4), 620-643.
[34]	Johnson, A., Laestadius, L., 2011. New laws, new needs: the role of wood science in global policy efforts to reduce illegal logging and associated trade. IAWA J. 32(2), 125-136.
[35]	Johnson, A.E., Gehl, D., 2019. The 2008 “Illegal Logging Amendments”: A ten-year review of the lacey act’s impact on law, policy, and the environment. Natural Resources & Environment. 33(3), 38-42.
[36]	Johnston, C., Guo, J.G., Prestemon, J.P., 2025. The European union deforestation regulation: Implications for the global forest sector. Forest Policy Econ. 173, 103462, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103462.
[37]	Johnson, K., Baker, A., Buley, K., et al., 2020. A process for assessing and prioritizing species conservation needs: going beyond the Red List. Oryx. 54(1), 125-132. doi: 10.1017/S0030605317001715
[38]	Jonsson, R., Mbongo, W., Felton, A., et al., 2012. Leakage implications for European timber markets from reducing deforestation in developing countries. Forests. 3, 736-744.
[39]	Khoo, E., Barstow, M., Maycock, C., et al., 2022. The Red List of Dipterocarpaceae. Richmond: Botanic Gardens Conservation International, 9.
[40]	Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al., 2016. Jupyter Notebooks—a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In: Loizides, F., Schmidt, B., (eds.). Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 87-90.
[41]	Koch, G., Haag, V., Heinz, I., et al., 2015. Control of internationally traded timber—The role of macroscopic and microscopic wood identification against illegal logging. Forensic Research. 6(6), 1000317, doi: 10.4172/2157-7145.1000317.
[42]	Lawson, S., 2015. The Lacey Act’s Effectiveness in Reducing Illegal Wood Imports. Cambridge: Union of Concerned Scientists, 15.
[43]	Lloyd, N.A., Keating, L.M., Friesen, A.J., et al., 2023. Prioritizing species conservation programs based on IUCN Green Status and estimates of cost-sharing potential. Conserv. Biol. 37(3), e14051, doi: 10.1111/cobi.14051.
[44]	Low, M.C., Schmitz, N., Boeschoten, L.E., et al., 2022. Tracing the world’s timber: the status of scientific verification technologies for species and origin identification. IAWA Journal. 44(1), 63-84.
[45]	Lowe, A.J., Dormontt, E.E., Bowie, M.J., et al., 2016. Opportunities for improved transparency in the timber trade through scientific verification. Bioscience. 66(11), 990-998.
[46]	Mackenzie, J., Denchak, M., 2024. Deforestation and Forest Degradation: The Causes, Effects, and Solutions. [2025-04-09]. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/deforestation-forest-degradation-causes-effects-solutions.
[47]	May, S., 2022. Labelling local wood: On the valorization of regionality and sustainability in timber trade. Acta Geogr. Slov. 62(2), doi: 10.3986/AGS.10507.
[48]	Mittermeier, R.A., Ratsimbazafy, J., Rylands, A.B., et al., 2007. Primates in peril: the world’s 25 most endangered primates, 2006-2008. Primate Conservation. 22(1), 1-40.
[49]	Nijman, V., 2024. The illegal trade in rosewood in Indonesia. Eur. J. For. Res. 143(3), 1047-1055.
[50]	Oldach, L., 2023. Forensic Researchers Use Mass Spectrometry to Identify Smuggled Wood. [2024-10-07]. https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/mass-spectrometry/Forensic-researchers-use-mass-spectrometry-to-identify-smuggled-wood/101/i7.
[51]	Pokharel, M., Germain, R.H., Wagner, J.E., et al., 2023. Estimating a regional economic conservation benefit of using domestic hardwoods vs. Apitong for trailer decking: A case study on US army use. Forests. 14(7), 1428, doi: 10.3390/f14071428.
[52]	Pokharel, M., Wagner, J.E., Germain, R.H., 2025. The long-term effects of the Lacey Act Amendment on high-risk timber species: insights from 15 years of interrupted time series analysis. Can. J. For. Res. 55, 1-19.
[53]	Politi, N., Rivera, L., Martinuzzi, S., et al., 2021. Conservation prioritization when species distribution data are scarce. Landsc. Urban Plan. 210, 104067, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104067.
[54]	Plant of the World Online, 2024. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew. [2024-10-07]. https://powo.science.kew.org/.
[55]	Rand, J., Rodriguez, P.C., Tarp, F., et al., 2023. Economic and environmental upgrading after a policy reform: The case of timber value chain in Myanmar. J. Rural Stud. 99, 20-34.
[56]	Regan, H.M., Hierl, L.A., Franklin, J., et al., 2008. Species prioritization for monitoring and management in regional multiple species conservation plans. Divers. Distrib. 14(3), 462-471. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00447.x pmid: 32313432
[57]	Rivera, D., Allkin, R., Obón, C., et al., 2014. What is in a name? The need for accurate scientific nomenclature for plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 152(3), 393-402. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.12.022 pmid: 24374235
[58]	Shlens, J., 2014. A Tutorial on Principal Component Analysis. [2024-10-02]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1100.
[59]	Smith, J., Plumptre, R., Burclaff, V., et al., 1994. “Prospect” for Improved Use of Tropical Timbers: a Guide to the Use of Lesser Known Timbers. Oxford: University of Oxford.
[60]	Stopfer, L., Kaulen, A., Purfürst, T., 2024. Potential of blockchain technology in wood supply chains. Comput. Electron. Agric. 216, 108496, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2023.108496.
[61]	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2021. Geologically Vibrant Continents Produce Higher Biodiversity. [2024-10-14]. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210928074954.htm.
[62]	The World Flora Online, 2024. An Online Flora of All Known Plants. [2024-10-07]. https://www.worldfloraonline.org/.
[63]	Thomassen, H.A., Fuller, T., Buermann, W., et al., 2011. Mapping evolutionary process: a multi-taxa approach to conservation prioritization. Evol. Appl. 4(2), 397-413. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00172.x pmid: 25567981
[64]	Tsumura, Y., Kado, T., Yoshida, K., et al., 2011. Molecular database for classifying Shorea species (Dipterocarpaceae) and techniques for checking the legitimacy of timber and wood products. J. Plant Res. 124, 35-48.
[65]	Tzoulis, I.K., Andreopoulou, Z.S., Voulgaridis, E., 2014. Wood tracking information systems to confront illegal logging. Journal of Agricultural Informatics. 5, 9-17.
[66]	United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2021. Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions. [2024-10-17]. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/02/2021-14155/implementation-of-revised-lacey-act-provisions.
[67]	United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2024a. Lacey Act Declaration Implementation Schedule. [2024-10-18]. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant-imports/lacey-act/implementation-schedule.
[68]	United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2024b. Frequently Asked Questions about Lacey Act Declaration Requirements. [2024-10-02]. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant-imports/lacey-act/filing-declaration.
[69]	United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, 2024. Search Taxonomy Germplasm Resources Information Network-Global. [2024-10-05]. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.
[70]	United States Department of Agriculture-Global Agricultural Trade System, 2024. Imports of Tropical Timbers. [2024-10-07]. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx?publish=1.
[71]	United States Forest Service, 2024. Wood Identification & Screening Center. [2024-10-06]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/international-programs/WISC.
[72]	United States International Trade Commission, 2024. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. [2024-10-07]. https://hts.usitc.gov/.
[73]	Zanne, A.E., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Coomes, D.A., et al., 2009. Data from: Towards a Worldwide Wood Economics Spectrum. [2024-09-07]. https://datadryad.org/dataset/. doi:10.5061/dryad.234#usage.

Species group	Genus	High-risk producer countries	Percentage of the total import volume (%)	Total import value (×10⁶ USD)
Keruing	Dipterocarpus	Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brazil	99.70	157.16
Meranti	Shorea	Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines	99.60	68.61
Acajou d’Afrique	Khaya	Cameroon, Ghana, Congo, and Cote d’Ivoire	94.00	82.68
Mahogany	Swietenia	Bolivia, Brazil, Ghana, and Indonesia	15.30	14.01

Type of record	Percentage of shipment records by timber species group (%)				Percentage of the total shipment record (%)
Type of record	Keruing	Meranti	Acajou d’Afrique	Mahogany	Percentage of the total shipment record (%)
Records with only the genus	21.20	13.40	0.20	0.50	10.60
Records with only a trade name	2.40	2.50	0.00	0.00	1.50
Records with names unrecognized by standard taxonomic database	2.30	2.10	2.80	5.50	2.50
Records with older synonyms that were updated to currently accepted scientific name	0.50	0.70	9.30	0.00	3.70
Records with correct and current scientific name	73.70	81.30	87.80	94.00	81.70

No.	Scientific name	IUCN status	CITES appendix	Average annual import volume (m³)
1	Swietenia macrophylla	Endangered	Appendix II^*	1410
2	Swietenia mahagoni	Near threatened	Appendix II^*	16

Species group	Principal component	Explained variance (%)	Factor loading
Species group	Principal component	Explained variance (%)	Import value	Import volume	Import year
Keruing	PC1	66.98	0.69	0.69	0.16
Keruing	PC2	32.41	0.10	0.13	0.99
Meranti	PC1	66.00	0.69	0.68	0.23
Meranti	PC2	31.69	0.11	0.21	-0.97
Acajou d’Afrique	PC1	63.93	0.69	0.69	0.20
Acajou d’Afrique	PC2	32.14	0.10	0.18	-0.98