Species Overview

Scientific: Lantana strigocamara

Common: lantana, common lantana, hedgeflower, afrombrilla, hediona, shrub verbena

Introduction History: Ornamental introduction

General Description: A sprawling to upright, many-branched woody shrub that typically grows 1–3 m tall, often forms dense thickets, typically associated with disturbance. Stems are often armed with small prickles, and leaves are deciduous, rough-textured, and strongly aromatic when crushed. Clusters of brightly colored flowers, commonly yellow, orange, pink, or red, are produced throughout much of the year and are followed by dark purple-black fruits.

Species Characteristics

Family: Verbenaceae

Habitat: Disturbed areas, pastures, suburban forest edges (Langeland et al., 2008; Weakley et al., 2026)

Leaves: Opposite, simple, ovate leaves. Blade bases truncate. Surface roughly hairy. 6 inches long and 2.4 inches wide. Leaf margin blunt-toothed. Leaves strongly aromatic. (Langeland et al., 2008).

Inflorescence: Conspicuous stalked, flat-topped clusters (1.4 inches wide). (Langeland et al., 2008)

Flowers: Highly variable in color (white, pink, lavender, yellow, orange, red). Narrowly tubular with 4 short, spreading lobes. Produced year-round in southern peninsula of Florida, or May to December in North and Central Florida (Langeland et al., 2008).

Fruit: Round, fleshy 2-seeded drupe type fruit (0.2 inches wide). Green color maturing to purple then blue-black. (Langeland et al., 2008)

Distribution in Florida: documented in 60 counties.

Toxicity: Leaves of this weed can cause serious injury if consumed by some livestock (horses, cattle, sheep) and unripe berries can seriously poison humans depending upon amount consumed and age of consumer (Carstairs et al., 2010; Fourie, 1987; Kumar et al., 2016; Morton, 1971, 1994; Sharma et al., 2007).

Distinguish this species from other lantana present in Florida: Larger leaves are usually wider than 2 inches, mostly 1-1.5x longer than wide. When plant material is dried, L. strigocamara usually does not turn black (nigrescent) like others in the genus (Wunderlin et al., 2025).

Still confused about identifying lantana? Check out these resources:

Interactive Key 

Florida Plant Atlas Key

Flora of the Southeast US Key

Impacts

Regulation/Categorization: UF/IFAS Assessment “Invasive”, FISC Category I

• Hybridization of L. strigocamara with native Lanata spp. can potentially threaten the genetic integrity of Florida populations (Hammer, 1997; Maschinski et al., 2010; Sanders, 1987).
• Rapidly recovers and succeeds in post-burn conditions (Harris et al., 2021).
• Allelopathic compounds within this plant promote its competitive life-cycle and invasive traits (Achhireddy & Singh, 1984; Kato-Noguchi & Kurniadie, 2021; Sahid & Sugau, 1993; Smith, 1985).
• Tolerant of a wide variety of light conditions but highly reproductive in open habitats (Carrión-Tacuri et al., 2011).
• Naturalized biotypes are drought-resistant (Gunasekara & Ranwala, 2018).
• Highly competitive growth and reproduction outcompetes native vegetation (Cronk & Fuller, 1995; Sundaram & Hiremath, 2012).
• Future climate trends may potentially permit range expansion in some areas of the world (Goncalves et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2012).
• Tolerant of fire (Smith, 1985) and alters habitat fuel composition, increasing wildfire risk (Berry et al., 2011).
• Widespread ornamental popularity of L. strogocamara maintains propagule pressure in natural areas (Hammer, 1997; Mack, 1991).
• Bird-dispersed seeds permit long-distance dispersal (Janzen, 1983).
• Lacking federal and state regulations, L. strigocamara represents a persistent threat to natural areas in Florida.

Do not plant or cultivate this species, replace established landscaping with native Lantana alternatives or sterile cultivars from reputable sources.

Learn more about sterile lantana cultivars here. Or native lantanas here.

Learn more about ornamental plant alternatives suitable for Florida gardens.

Standalone mechanical means to control L. strigocamara are largely regarded as insufficient due to regrowth potential (Priyanka et al., 2013). Removal of aboveground tissue may temporarily suppress further dispersion of this weed by delaying sexual reproduction but cannot sufficiently control this weed as a standalone treatment.

There are currently no biological control agents that have been implemented for control of this weed, but investigations are ongoing (Priyanka et al., 2013; Zalucki et al., 2007)

Sequential foliar applications of fluroxypyr (8 oz/acre) provide effective long-term control of lantana. Tank mixtures of fluroxypyr + aminopyralid (8 + 1.71 oz/acre) improve control relative to single active ingredients and can achieve high levels of suppression with repeated applications. Single applications of aminopyralid (1.71 oz/acre) or aminopyralid + 2,4-D (1.71 + 14.3 oz/acre) are generally insufficient for long-term control when applied foliarly (Ferrell et al., 2012).

Basal bark applications of triclopyr ester (20% v/v) provide moderate control but are inconsistent at longer evaluation periods. Mixtures of triclopyr ester + aminopyralid (20% + 1% v/v) improve long-term control compared to triclopyr alone. Applications of imazapyr (3% v/v) can provide strong initial control but may not maintain long-term suppression (Ferrell et al., 2012).

Due to the structural morphology of shrubs and subshrubs, cut-stump applications and basal bark methods of controlling this weed require increased labor costs associated with treatment time (Ferrell et al., 2012). Foliar spot applications for this weed may be most cost effective for abundant infestations if non-target vegetation does not interfere with adequate foliar coverage. Expect non-target plant damage using any of these herbicides.

Visit this lantana management guide for more information.