You'll find it both hyphenated and unhyphenated, depending on who's writing it. When I searched in COCA for long lasting .
and long-lasting .
, there were a significant number of hits for both, with 58 for the one without the hyphen and 96 for the one with.
Unlike some other compounds, there's no ambiguity for a hyphen to resolve with "long-lasting". Compare "her reply was thought-provoking" and "her reply was thought [to be] provoking" where there is ambiguity.
It's really a matter of style. Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition says (quoted from a relevant ELU answer):
6.40: Where the compound adjective follows the noun it modifies, there is usually little to no risk of ambiguity or hesitation, and the hyphen may be safely omitted. [There are, of course, exceptions to this, as in "her reply was thought provoking."]
APA rules similarly.
In contrast, MLA says:
We hyphen certain adjective compounds in both attributive and predicate positions. More specifically, we hyphen in both positions an adjective compound formed from a noun or an adjective that is in syntactic relation to a participle or an adjective. For example:
- His loyalty, though fear-inspired, was unswerving.
- His politics were communist-oriented.
- With hundreds of acres, they were land-rich but poverty-stricken.