Litter Cover

AUS-ASC-CON-LIT General Moderate confidence

Benchmark Value

55 %
Direction: Higher is desirable ↑
Form: Point

Scoring Curve

Scoring curve unavailable

The scoring engine could not generate a curve for this benchmark context. The primary form is Point, but the benchmark data may be missing required fields (e.g., optimal range bounds for an OptimalRange benchmark). This is typically a data quality issue in the benchmark pipeline.

Evidence & Context

For Western subalpine scrub (SSW), particularly the Banksia marginata facies, the benchmark for organic litter cover is 55%.

Metric Definition:

Percent cover of organic litter.

Benchmark Definition:

In the Australian Alpine and Subalpine Complex, undisturbed Western subalpine scrub dominated by Banksia marginata has a high organic litter cover benchmark of 55%.

Justification:

This high value reflects the structural density of the scrub, which is dominated by small trees and large shrubs that contribute substantial woody and foliar litter to the forest floor.

Sources (1)

Preview of Western subalpine scrub: Banksia marginata facies
Western subalpine scrub: Banksia marginata facies Journal

Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania. (2022). SSW Western subalpine scrub: Banksia marginata facies.

View Source

Supporting Sources (13)

Additional references from the underlying research that informed this benchmark.

Preview of AHF Freshwater aquatic herbland
AHF Freshwater aquatic herbland
Direct Evidence Journal

AHF Freshwater aquatic herbland

View Source
Preview of Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The 'habitat hectares' approach
Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The 'habitat hectares' approach
Direct Evidence Journal

short-term review

View Source
Preview of Assessment of Habitat Quality: Subalpine
Assessment of Habitat Quality: Subalpine
Direct Evidence Journal

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA). (2011). Assessment of Habitat Quality: Subalpine.

View Source
Preview of Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). (2020). Victorian Alps Bioregion EVC Benchmarks.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). (2020). Victorian Alps Bioregion EVC Benchmarks.
Contextual Support Direct Evidence Journal

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). (2020). Victorian Alps Bioregion EVC Benchmarks.

View Source
Preview of Flora and Fauna Report 2022
Flora and Fauna Report 2022
Direct Evidence Journal

Flora and Fauna Report 2022

View Source
Preview of Gelliondale Flora and Fauna Report
Gelliondale Flora and Fauna Report
Direct Evidence Journal

Gelliondale Flora and Fauna Report

View Source
Preview of Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation - Environment
Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation - Environment
Direct Evidence Journal

Native Vegetation Integrity Benchmarks - Environment and Heritage, accessed April 6, 2026

View Source
Preview of Holmquist, J. G., Schmidt-Gengenbach, J., & Haultain, S. A. (2013). Effects of a Long-Term Disturbance on Arthropods and Vegetation in Subalpine Wetlands. PLOS ONE, 8(1).
Holmquist, J. G., Schmidt-Gengenbach, J., & Haultain, S. A. (2013). Effects of a Long-Term Disturbance on Arthropods and Vegetation in Subalpine Wetlands. PLOS ONE, 8(1).
Contextual Support Journal

Holmquist, J. G., Schmidt-Gengenbach, J., & Haultain, S. A. (2013). Effects of a Long-Term Disturbance on Arthropods and Vegetation in Subalpine Wetlands. PLOS ONE, 8(1).

View Source
Preview of Mapping Windthrow Severity as Change in Canopy Cover in a Temperate Eucalypt Forest
Mapping Windthrow Severity as Change in Canopy Cover in a Temperate Eucalypt Forest
Direct Evidence Methodology Source Journal

Somerville, M. et al. (2019). Function attribute benchmarks for the Biodiversity Assessment Method. NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

View Source
Preview of SHS Subalpine heathland: closed heathland facies
SHS Subalpine heathland: closed heathland facies
Direct Evidence Journal

Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania. (2022). SHS Subalpine heathland: closed heathland facies.

View Source
Preview of Tasmanian Government. (2023). Hearing Submission R15: Stephen Bartels.
Tasmanian Government. (2023). Hearing Submission R15: Stephen Bartels.
Contextual Support Direct Evidence Journal

Tasmanian Government. (2023). Hearing Submission R15: Stephen Bartels.

View Source
Preview of Vic Ecology FF Long Report Template - Planning
Vic Ecology FF Long Report Template - Planning
Direct Evidence Journal

Biosis and GHD. (2016). Flora and Fauna Assessment: Mount Buller Water Storage Project.

View Source
Preview of WorleyParsons. (2011). Australian Alps Catchment Condition Report.
WorleyParsons. (2011). Australian Alps Catchment Condition Report.
Contextual Support Journal

WorleyParsons. (2011). Australian Alps Catchment Condition Report.

View Source

Context

  • Region Australia
  • Biome Alpine and Subalpine Complex
  • Land Use Conservation / Protected Natural Areas
  • Assessment Pristine Reference
  • Vegetation Shrubland
  • Evidence Type ReferenceCondition

Lifecycle

  • Status Active
  • Version 1
  • Effective From 26 May 2026

Related Benchmarks

Other benchmarks in the AUS-ASC-CON-LIT family.

10 % Moderate
Point Active v2
5 % Moderate
MinimumOnly Active v2
50 % Moderate
Point Active v2
40 % Moderate
Point Active v2
20 % Moderate
Point Active v2
10 % Moderate
Point Active v2
55 % Moderate
Point Active v2
10 % Moderate
Point Active v2
5 % Moderate
Point Active v2
10 % Moderate
Point Active v2
% Low
OptimalRange Active v2
10 % High
Point Active v1
5 % High
MinimumOnly Active v1
50 % Moderate
Point Active v1
40 % Moderate
Point Active v1
20 % Moderate
Point Active v1
10 % Moderate
Point Active v1
10 % Moderate
Point Active v1
5 % Moderate
Point Active v1
10 % Moderate
Point Active v1
% Low
OptimalRange Active v1
10 % High
MinimumOnly Active v1
20 % Moderate
MinimumOnly Active v1
30 % Low
MinimumOnly Active v1
10 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
5 % Moderate
MinimumOnly Superseded v1
50 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
40 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
20 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
10 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
55 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
10 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
5 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
10 % Moderate
Point Superseded v1
% Low
OptimalRange Superseded v1