Invasive Species Presence

AUS-ASC-FOR-ISP General Low confidence

Benchmark Value

42 %
Thresholds: Lower: —, Upper: 42
Direction: Lower is desirable ↓
Form: Point

Scoring Curve

This curve shows how a field measurement for this indicator would score across all available benchmark forms in this context.

Evidence & Context

"larger percentage of alien species along national roads (42 % in the aboveground vegetation)."

Metric Definition:

Percentage of species composition or ground cover.

Benchmark Definition:

This benchmark represents the high percentage of alien species presence along national roads, indicating significant disturbance and invasion in forest buffer zones.

Justification:

Indicates high level of degradation in forest buffer zones due to traffic-mediated invasion.

Sources (1)

Preview of Natural Resources Commission NSW (2022). Insights report - November 2022.
Natural Resources Commission NSW (2022). Insights report - November 2022. Journal

Natural Resources Commission NSW (2022). Insights report - November 2022.

View Source

Supporting Sources (8)

Additional references from the underlying research that informed this benchmark.

Preview of DCCEEW (2011). Nomination for feral deer as a key threatening process.
DCCEEW (2011). Nomination for feral deer as a key threatening process.
Direct Evidence Journal

DCCEEW (2011). Nomination for feral deer as a key threatening process.

View Source
Preview of Ecological assessments for WildCount - TEF
Ecological assessments for WildCount - TEF
Direct Evidence Government

DCCEEW (2024). Bushfire recovery for wildlife and their habitat - Phase 2 Recovery and Resilience funded projects.

View Source
Preview of Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (2020). Non-native Forest Pests in Australia.
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (2020). Non-native Forest Pests in Australia.
Direct Evidence Journal

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (2020). Non-native Forest Pests in Australia.

View Source
Preview of Great Divide Northern Forests (2023–24) Scorecard Report
Great Divide Northern Forests (2023–24) Scorecard Report
Direct Evidence Journal

Great Divide Northern Forests (2023–24) Scorecard Report

View Source
Preview of Motion on recreational hunting and invasive deer management
Motion on recreational hunting and invasive deer management
Regulatory Framework Government

Motion on recreational hunting and invasive deer management

View Source
Preview of Murray Region Forestry Hub (2025). Blackberry Strategic Plan and Actions.
Murray Region Forestry Hub (2025). Blackberry Strategic Plan and Actions.
Contextual Support GreyLiterature

Murray Region Forestry Hub (2025). Blackberry Strategic Plan and Actions.

View Source
Preview of Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2015). Aquatic value identification and risk assessment manual.
Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2015). Aquatic value identification and risk assessment manual.
Direct Evidence Journal

Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2015). Aquatic value identification and risk assessment manual.

View Source
Preview of WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (2009). Forest Health Surveillance Report.
WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (2009). Forest Health Surveillance Report.
Direct Evidence Journal

WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (2009). Forest Health Surveillance Report.

View Source

Context

  • Region Australia
  • Biome Alpine and Subalpine Complex
  • Land Use Production Forestry
  • Assessment Pristine Reference
  • Evidence Type DegradationThreshold

Lifecycle

  • Status Proposed
  • Version 2
  • Effective From 10 Apr 2026

Notes

Values on national roads are used as a proxy for high-disturbance impact.

Related Benchmarks

Other benchmarks in the AUS-ASC-FOR-ISP family.

14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Active v4
58 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Active v4
5 % High
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Active v3
— % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
OptimalRange Active v2
14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Active v2
6 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Active v2
9 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Active v2
14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Active v2
— % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
OptimalRange Active v1
42 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Active v1
42 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Active v1
5 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Proposed v4
20 % Low
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Proposed v4
20 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Proposed v4
9 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v3
5 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Superseded v3
5 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Superseded v2
20 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Superseded v2
6 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v2
5 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
MaximumOnly Superseded v1
14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v1
— % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
OptimalRange Superseded v1
5 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Pristine Reference
Point Superseded v1
14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v1
6 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v1
9 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v1
14 % Moderate
Production Forestry · Conservation Target
Point Superseded v1