Creeping lantana (Lantana montevidensis)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Lantana montevidensis (Spreng.) Briq
Common name(s):	creeping lantana

Map showing the present distribution of this weed.

Habitat:

“Infested hundreds of thousands of hectares of pasture land…increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands and sclerophyll forests, on
alluvial plains, roadside cuttings, along fencelines and river banks and on rocky outcrops” (Johnson & Lisle 2006)

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
Forestry; pasture dryland; pasture irrigation;

Ecological Vegetation Divisions
Coastal; grassy/heathy dry forest; foothills forest; forby forest; granitic hillslopes; rocky outcrop shrubland; western plains woodland; alluvial plains grassland; semi-arid woodland; alluvial plains woodland; ironbark/box; chenopod shrubland; chenopod mallee; hummock-grass mallee; lowan mallee; broombush
whipstick

Colours indicate possibility of Lantana montevidensis infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	“Low woody shrub growing to only 45-61cm high. Its vinelike stems can sprawl to 1.5m or longer to form wide ranging clumps (Floridata 2008). MH- High nuisance value. People AND/OR vehicles access with difficulty.	MH	MH
2. Reduce tourism?	Leaves have an unpleasant odour when crushed...(Floridata 2008). Unripe berries are toxic (Floridata 2008). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). MH – Some recreational uses affected.	MH	MH
3. Injurious to people?	No spines, thorns or burrs (UNIHAW 2008). Berries are poisonous to humans (MSWN 2008). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). ML- Mildly toxic, may cause some physiological issues.	ML	MH
4. Damage to cultural sites?	Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Stems trail over rocks, banks and climb along tree braches for support (Johnson 2008). Trail over rocks, banks and climb along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). ML- moderate visual effect.	ML	MH
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Non Aquatic (UNIHAW 2008). River banks (Johnson & Lisle 2008), creeping (Johnson 2008). May have small effect on edge surface flow. ML –minor impact on surface or subsurface flow either by roots or free floating aquatics.	ML	MH
6. Impact water quality?	“seeds float, gullies and watercourses were susceptible to infestation” (Johnson & Lisle 2006). River banks (Johnson & Lisle 2008), creeping (Johnson 2008). Forms dense thickets (UNIHAW 2008). May reduce light levels to some extent. ML- Noticeable but minor effects in either dissolved oxygen OR light levels.	ML	MH
7. Increase soil erosion?	Produces low growing dense thickets…roots at the stem nodes…taproot and lateral roots…(Johnson and Lisle 2006). “Lantana montevidensis may prevent erosion of steep slopes” (Johnson 2008). L- Low probability of large scale soil movement; OR decreases the probability of soil erosion.	L	MH
8. Reduce biomass?	Forms dense low growing thickets (Johnson & Lisle 2006)… up to .6 m high (Floridata 2008). L- biomass may increase	L	M
9. Change fire regime?	Lantana montevidensis usually flowers abundantly after burning of the vegetation (Haddad & Valio 1993). Burning is recommended as a good way to control L. montevidensis…..L. montevidensis generally produced inadequate fuel loads to maintain a hot enough fire to kill the roots (Johnson 2008). Forms dense thickets (UNIHAW 2008). ML – Minor change to either frequency OR intensity of fire risk.	ML	MH
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC = Swampy Riparian Woodland (E); CMA = West Gippsland; Bioregion = Gippsland Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. “readily displaces native vegetation” (WMG 2003). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). “This species is increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands,… sclerophyll forests, …riverbanks ((Johnson & Lisle 2006). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). Climbs along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). MH- Minor effect on >60% of the layers or major effect on <60% of the floral strata	MH	M
(b) medium value EVC	EVC = Wet Heathland (D); CMA = West Gippsland; Bioregion = Gippsland Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. “readily displaces native vegetation” (WMG 2003). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). “This species is increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands,… sclerophyll forests, …riverbanks ((Johnson & Lisle 2006). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). Climbs along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). MH- Minor effect on >60% of the layers or major effect on <60% of the floral strata.	MH	M
(c) low value EVC	EVC = Mangrove Shrubland (LC); CMA = Port Phillip and Westernport; Bioregion = Gippsland Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. “readily displaces native vegetation” (WMG 2003). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). “This species is increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands,… sclerophyll forests, …riverbanks ((Johnson & Lisle 2006). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). Climbs along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). MH- Minor effect on >60% of the layers or major effect on <60% of the floral strata.	MH	M
11. Impact on structure?	“readily displaces native vegetation” (WMG 2003). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). “This species is increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands,… sclerophyll forests, …riverbanks ((Johnson & Lisle 2006). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). Climbs along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). MH- Minor effect on >60% of the layers or major effect on <60% of the floral strata.	MH	M
12. Effect on threatened flora?	“readily displaces native vegetation” (WMG 2003). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). “This species is increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands,… sclerophyll forests, …riverbanks ((Johnson & Lisle 2006). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). No specific information on impacts on threatened flora (pers. Obs). ML - Any population of a VROT spp is reduced.	ML	M
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Unripe berries are toxic (Floridata 2008). Toxic to animals (UNIHAW 2008). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). No specific information on impacts on threatened flora (pers. Obs). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). ML- Minor effects on threatened spp.; minor hazard OR reduction in habitat/food/shelter.	ML	M
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Toxic to animals (UNIHAW 2008). Unripe berries are toxic (Floridata 2008). Invades pastures and many natural ecosystems (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). Some evidence to suggest that L. montevidensis reduces plant and animal diversity in the ecosystems in which it occurs (Johnson 2008). MH- Reduction in habitat for fauna spp., leading to reduction in numbers of individuals, but NOT to local extinction.	MH	MH
15. Benefits fauna?	Flowers are very attractive to butterflies (Floridata 2008). Ripe fruits are eaten / dispersed by a range of birds and animals (Johnson & Lisle 2006). MH – Provides some assistance in either food or shelter to desirable species.	MH	M
16. Injurious to fauna?	Unripe berries are toxic (Floridata 2008). Toxic to animals (UNIHAW 2008). Ripe fruits are eaten / dispersed by a range of birds and animals (Johnson & Lisle 2006). A number of reports in literature of L. montevidensis being toxic (pers. Obs; Johnson 2008) Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). MH- Spines, burrs or toxic properties to fauna at certain times of the year.	MH	M
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	“Livestock and pets have become ill after eating the foliage” (Floridata 2008). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). Invades pasture, outcompetes desirable species and reduces grazing animal carrying capacity (Johnson 2008). Berries eaten by wide range of birds (Johnson & Lisle 2006) - may be eaten by blackbirds etc. ML – Supplies food for one or minor pest spp. (eg. Blackbirds or environmental insect pests).	ML	MH
18. Provides harbor?	“Burning, slashing and digging results in regrowth of even larger numbers of shoots, which become potential breeding areas for pigs, rats and insects” (Agnote 1998). Potential to harbour foxes and rabbits. MH – capacity to harbour rabbits and foxes at low densities or as overnight cover.	MH	MH
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	L. montevidensis has infested hundreds of thousands of hectares of pasture land in central Queensland and this has resulted in significant land devaluation and loss of income (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Invades pasture, outcompetes desirable species and reduces grazing animal carrying capacity (Johnson 2008). MH – Major impact on quantity of produce (eg. 5-20%).	MH	MH
20. Impact quality?	“plants are suspected of cattle poisoning” (Spencer 2002). Toxicity to herbivores required further investigation (Johnson 2008). Reduces food availability and is likely to be toxic (Johnson 2008). MH -	MH	MH
21. Affect land value?	Well controlled by herbicides (UNIHAW 2008). L. montevidensis has infested hundreds of thousands of hectares of pasture land in central Queensland and this has resulted in significant land devaluation and loss of income (Johnson & Lisle 2006). MH – Decreases in land value <10%	MH	MH
22. Change land use?	Herbicide gives good results, planting competitive grasses will suppress L. montevidensis to some extent and ploughing will bury seed and reduce emergence (Johnson & Lisle 2006). A number of control techniques exist (Johnson 2008). ML – Some change, but no serious alteration of either agricultural return. Affects more the visual rather than intrinsic agricultural value.	ML	MH
23. Increase harvest costs?	L. montevidensis has infested hundreds of thousands of hectares of pasture land in central Queensland and this has resulted in significant land devaluation and loss of income (Johnson & Lisle 2006). H- Major increase in time or labour, or machinery in harvesting.	H	MH
24. Disease host/vector?	A host for recognised pests and pathogens (UNIHAW 2008). MH – Provides host to minor (or common) pests, or disease.	MH	MH

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Germinates any time of year provided there is sufficient moisture and light… Seed cannot be buried…smoke and pasture gaps increase germination (Johnson & Lisle 2006). H – Opportunistic germinator, can germinate strike/ set root at any time whenever water is available.	H	MH
2. Establishment requirements?	Established more readily in undisturbed or under light to medium grazed conditions (Johnson 2008). Mortality of seedlings was caused by a wide range of factors including moisture stress, physical disturbance, fire, herbicides, cattle trampling, and perhaps grazing” (Johnson and Lisle 2006). MH- Can establish under moderate canopy/ litter cover.	MH	MH
3. How much disturbance is required?	“Infested hundreds of thousands of hectares of pasture land…increasingly weedy in degraded grasslands, woodlands and sclerophyll forests, on alluvial plains, roadside cuttings, along fencelines and river banks and on rocky outcrops” (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Established more readily in undisturbed or under light to medium grazed conditions (Johnson 2008). MH- Establishes in relatively intact or only minor disturbed natural ecosystems (eg. Wetlands, riparian, riverine, grasslands, open woodlands). Or in well established pastures.	MH	MH
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Large lignified taproot acts as a carbohydrate storage organ, allowing the species to resist fire, drought and herbicide damage (Johnson 2008). Trail over rocks, banks and climb along tree branches for support (Johnson 2008). ML - Geophyte, climber or creeper.	ML	MH
5. Allelopathic properties?	No (UNIHAW 2008). L- none.	L	M
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Removal of the aerial part of the plant by pruning caused L. Montevidensis to flower abundantly (Haddad & Valio 1993). Unpalatable to grazing animals (UNIHAW 2008). Deer resistant (SMG 2008). Once established the abundance of L. montevidensis is linked to overgrazing (Johnson 2008). Under biological control but impacts of agents have been limited (Johnson 2008). MH – Consumed but non- prefered or consumed but recovers quickly; capable of flowering/ seed production under moderate herbivory pressure.	MH	MH
7. Normal growth rate?	Slow while tap roots and lateral roots are developed… (Johnson & Lisle 2006) Growth rate fast ...quickly forms a low mounding ground cover (MSWN 2008). Forms dense thickets (UNIHAW 2008). MH – moderately rapid growth rate that will equal competitive species of the same life form.	MH	MH
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Tolerates salt (Edis 2008). Is tolerant of hot and droughty conditions...will tolerate short periods of freezing temperatures. (Floridata 2008). Shade…extended drought (Johnson 2008). MH- Highly tolerant of at least two of drought, frost fire, waterlogging, and salinity, and may be tolerant of another. Susceptible to at least one.	MH	MH
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation (UNIHAW 2008; Johnson & Lisle 2006). Reproduces by seed and stem layering (ie. Forms roots when stems contact the ground) (BFNS 2008). H- Both vegetative and sexual reproduction.	H	MH
10. Number of propagules produced?	Can set fruit all year (Johnson & Lisle 2006). (O’ Donnell 2002 as cited in Johnson & Lisle 2002) found that yearly seed production varied between 4965 – 5175 seeds per meter squared. L. montevidensis ornamental varieties did not produce fruit in Australia and New Zealand (Johnson & Lisle 2002), but will if pollinated by a weedy variety (Johnson 2008). H – above 2000.	H	MH
11. Propagule longevity?	“all surface sown seed was dead after two years” (Johnson & Lisle 2002). L – Greater than 25% of seeds survive 5 years or vegetatively reproduces.	L	MH
12. Reproductive period?	“Flowering and fruit set may occur all year” (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Plants of L. montevidensis may live for at least five years (Johnson & Lisle 2002). MH – Mature plant produces viable propagules for 3-10 years.	MH	MH
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Glasshouse plants produce seeds within a year but seedling development is much slower in the filed with growth rates of 1cm per month….seedlings become winter dormant, reshoot and flower in spring of the following year …seed set five weeks after flowering (Johnson & Lisle 2006). Vegetative reproduction (Johnson 2008). MH - Produces propagules 1-2 years after germination, or vegetative propagules become separate individuals between 1-2 years.	MH	MH
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Propagules are likely to be dispersed unintentionally and also intentionally by people.... Water and bird dispersed (UNIHAW 2008). Fruit dispersal by a range of birds and animals….”seeds float, gullies and water courses were susceptible to infestation”… Nursery trade…garden waste (Johnson & Lisle 2006). H- Very light wind dispersed seeds, OR bird dispersed seeds OR has edible fruit that is readily eaten by highly mobile animals.	H	MH
15. How far do they disperse?	Seeds float, gullies and water courses were susceptible to infestation…. Fruit dispersal by a range of birds and animals”… Nursery trade…garden waste (Johnson & Lisle 2006). H – Very likely that at least one propagule will disperse greater than one kilometre.	H	MH

References

Agnote (1998). Lantana (Lantana camara). By L. A Hills, Weeds Branch, Darwin. No 461, F29 April (1998).

BFNS (2008). Bushland Friendly nursery Scheme. http://www.bfns.org.au/index.php?c=3&w=23 (20/112008).

Day, M. D., Wilson, B. W., Nahrung, H. F. (2008). The life history and Host range of Charidotis pygmaea (Col.: Chrysomelidae), a Biological Control Agent for Lantana montevidensis (Verbenaceae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 9: 347-354.

Edis (2004). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences – University of Florida. Salt tolerant plants for Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/EP/EP01200.pdf (20/11/2008).

Floridata (2008) FLoridata: #60 Lantana montevidensis. http://floridata.com/ref/L/lant_m.cfm (20/11/2008).

Johnson, S. B. (2008). The biology of Australian weeds 50. Lantana montevidensis (Spreng.) Briq. Plant protection Quarterly Vol 23(3).

Johnson, S. B. & Lisle, D. (2006). The problem with Lantana montevidensis (creeping lantana). Fifteenth Australian Weeds Conference. P727 – 730. WMSSA inc.

Haddad C. R. B., & Valio, I. F. M. (1993) Effect of fire on flowering of Lantana Montevidensis Briq. Journal of Plant Physiology. 141: no 6, 704-707.

MSWN (2008) Mountain States Wholesale nursery. Lantana Montevidensis. www.mswn.com (20/11/2008).

SMG (2008) San Marcos Growers. Lantana montevidensis “Alba” www.smgrowers.com (20/11/2008).

Spencer, R. (2002). Horticultural flora of South Eastern Australia. Part 3. UNSW Press.

UNIHAW (2008) University of Hawaii i at Manoa Botany. Weed risk assessment: Lantana montevidensis.
http://www.hawaii.edu/search/index.php?cx=008945998903415758105%3A4nrwh9-26ni&cof=FORID%3A11&q=lantana+montevidensis#1018 (20/11/2008).

WMG (2003) Weeds of National Significance. Weed Management Guide. Lantana – Lantana camara. National Heritage Trust. Australia.

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) (2008) Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, Available at
http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/ (verified 12/12/08).

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2008) Global biodiversity information facility, Available at http://www.gbif.org/ (verified 12/12/08).
IPMS: Integrated Pest Management System (2006) Department of Primary Industries.

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) (2008) w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, Available at http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html (verified 12/12/08).

National Biodiversity Network (2004) NBN Gateway, National Biodiversity Network, UK, Available at http://www.searchnbn.net/index_homepage/index.jsp (verified 12/12/08).

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top