Impact Assessment - Lantana (Lantana camara) in Victoria
Back | Table | Feedback
Assessment of plant invasiveness is done by evaluating biological and ecological characteristics such as germination requirements, growth rate, competitive ability, reproduction methods and dispersal mechanisms. Assessment of plant impacts, however, is determined by the extent to which a plant affects a land manager’s environmental, economic and social resources.
The relative importance of these resources varies depending upon the value people place on them and, as such, the assessment process is subjective. For example, a farmer is likely to place a higher emphasis on the impact of a plant on production (economic resource) than its impact on areas of natural vegetation occurring on the farm. Conversely, a Landcare or Friends group would value environmental or social resources more than economic resources.
Recognising that the value of resources vary between different land tenures, plant impact assessments allow a prioritisation of resources by land managers. Assessments can apply at a local, regional or state level, and the relative values of each resource identified may differ at each level.
The impact assessment method used in the Victorian Pest Plant Prioritisation Process uses three broad resource categories: social, environmental and agricultural, each with a number of related attributes. For example, social resources include such attributes as how the plant affects human access for recreation, or if it creates a health risk due to toxicity or by producing allergens.
| Each resource attribute, or criterion, is assessed relative to a list of intensity ratings. Depending upon information found in relation to each criterion, a rating of Low, Medium Low, Medium High or High is assigned. Descriptions of the impact criteria and intensity ratings used in this process can be viewed here. |
The following table provides information on the impact of Lantana
A more detailed description of the methodology of the Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method can be viewed below:
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (PDF - 630 KB)
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (DOC - 1 MB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).
Common Name: Lantana
Scientific name: Lantana camara
| Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
| Recreation | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | “Thicket forming shrub 2 – 4 m tall. Stems are covered in prickles and interlink with adjacent plants to form dense, tangle, impenetrable thickets” (Muyt 2001). Human access severely restricted. | H | MH |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall…greatly reducing the area’s conservation value, making it impenetrable to people” (Panetta et al. 1998). Major impact on recreation. | H | MH |
| 3. Injurious to people? | “Stems are armed with sharp recurved spines” (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Potential to cause minor injury all year round. | MH | MH |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall” (Panetta et al. 1998). Not known to cause structural damage; likely have a moderate negative visual effect. | ML | MH |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | L | MH |
| 6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | L | MH |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | “Much-branched thicket forming shrubs to 3 m high. [The root system comprises a] robust, brown woody rootstock with numerous shallow laterals” (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Unlikely to contribute to soil erosion. | L | MH |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | “Lantana is mainly an invader of open (in Australia especially eucalypt) woodland. It commonly forms dense monospecific stand several metres tall” (Panetta et al. 1998). Biomass may increase. | L | MH |
| 9. Change fire regime? | In woodland communities it commonly forms dense mono-specific stands that, “greatly increase the fire hazard under dry conditions. Dry lantana burns readily even when green” (Panetta et al. 1998). Moderate change to both frequency and intensity of fire. | MH | MH |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC=Coastal Headland Scrub (V); CMA=West Gippsland; Bioreg=Wilsons Promontory. Climate=VH. “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall which exclude native herbs, shrubs and tree and climber seedlings, greatly reducing the area’s conservation value” (Panetta et al. 1998). Monoculture within a layer. | H | MH |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC=Coastal Alkaline Scrub (D); CMA=West Gippsland; Bioreg=Gippsland Plain. Climate=VH. “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall which exclude native herbs, shrubs and tree and climber seedlings, greatly reducing the area’s conservation value” (Panetta et al. 1998). Monoculture within a layer. | H | MH |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC=Heathy Woodland (LC); CMA=West Gippsland; Bioreg=Wilsons Promontory; Climate=VH. “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall which exclude native herbs, shrubs and tree and climber seedlings, greatly reducing the area’s conservation value” (Panetta et al. 1998). Monoculture within a layer. | H | MH |
| 11. Impact on structure? | “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall which exclude native herbs, shrubs and tree and climber seedlings, greatly reducing the area’s conservation value” (Panetta et al. 1998). Potential to form monoculture. | H | MH |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened flora. | MH | L |
| Fauna | |||
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened fauna. | MH | L |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | “It commonly forms dense mono-specific stands several metres tall which exclude native herbs, shrubs and tree and climber seedlings” (Panetta et al. 1998). But, “Lantana thickets create a substitute habitat, providing food and shelter for some animal species” (ARMCANZ 2001). Structure is altered with reduced diversity; more importantly natural habitat is affected potentially leading to reduction in faunal populations. | MH | MH |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Lantana provides some shelter and food for native fauna (ARMCANZ 2001). | MH | MH |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | Although toxic to sheep and cattle, there is no evidence the plant affects native fauna (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). | L | MH |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | It is not documented as providing food to pest species. However, it is known to be an alternative food source for some native birds (ARMCANZ 2001). Potential food source to pest birds. | ML | MH |
| 18. Provides harbour? | “The thickets provide shelter for animal pests” (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). “It provides harbour to vermin, including rabbits, foxes and feral cats” (Anon. (n.d.))1. | H | MH |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | Direct impact on yield resulting from loss of pasture and animal deaths (ARMCANZ 2001). “Annual losses due to lantana in pastures are estimated to be $A7.7 m, comprising 1500 cattle deaths, 4.5% reduced performance, [and] 7.3% loss of pasture” (Panetta et al. 1998). Major impact on yield. | MH | MH |
| 20. Impact quality? | Not known to affect the quality of produce. Not a weed of cropping. | L | MH |
| 21. Affect land value? | Although not documented, the invasiveness of lantana, its impact on agricultural yield, its toxic properties and the cost of control all suggest that land values would be affected (Panetta et al. 1998). “It forms dense impenetrable thickets which impede access, alter fire regimes and reduce amenity and property values” (Anon (n.d.))1. | H | MH |
| 22. Change land use? | “Uncultivated pastures or neglected properties are readily invaded. Decline of traditional dairying /beef industries on the NSW and Queensland hinterlands and the expansion of rural subdivisions have resulted in many marginal grazing lands being abandoned and invaded by lantana” (ARMCANZ 2001). Left untreated, lantana infestations may result in a significant change in land use (or abandonment). | H | MH |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Not known to affect the cost of harvesting produce. | L | MH |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | “The thickets…act as alternative hosts for plant pathogens and pests such as Aschochyta phaseolorum, Physalospora fusca, and thrips (Holothrips flaviceps and Thrips tabaci)” (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Serious pest of horticulture. | H | MH |
Impact Assessment Record - Lantana (PDF - 73KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Lantana (DOC - 67KB)
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly). To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).
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.
© State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) 1996 - .
This work, Victorian Resources Online, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms.
The licence does not apply to ‘branding’ or some ‘images or photographs’ that may be owned by third parties. We ask you to seek prior approval to use images using the VRO feedback form. Access to higher quality images can also be provided on request.
This page was last updated on .