Bare Ground

Benchmark Value

No specific value — see range

Range: 90 to 100 %

Optimal Range: 90 to 100

Direction: Higher is desirable ↑

Form: OptimalRange

Scoring Curve

This curve shows how a field measurement for this indicator would score across all available benchmark forms in this context. The scoring engine uses 3 benchmarks together — the OptimalRange form drives the primary score, while 2 guard(s) constrain the result.

Contributing Benchmarks

OptimalRange Primary MinimumOnly Guard UpperThreshold Guard

Evidence & Context

"Mechanical disturbance (scarification or ripping)... provides a high coverage of 90–100% receptive seedbed."

Metric Definition:

Receptive seedbed (bare mineral soil exposure)

Benchmark Definition:

This benchmark represents the high coverage range of receptive seedbed achieved by mechanical disturbance in alpine and subalpine production forestry, facilitating seedling recruitment.

Justification:

Achieved with specialized machinery for recruitment

Sources (1)

Preview of Soil erosion hazard, accessed July 20, 2025,

Soil erosion hazard, accessed July 20, 2025, Journal

Forest Practices Authority Tasmania (2010). Technical Bulletin 2: Eucalyptus delegatensis forests.

View Source

Supporting Sources (8)

Additional references from the underlying research that informed this benchmark.

ABARES (2025). Indicator 4.1b: Management of the risk of soil erosion in forests. Australia's State of the Forests Report.

Contextual Support Government

ABARES (2023). Indicator 5.1a: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the global carbon cycle. Australia's State of the Forests Report.

View Source

Cunningham, S. C., & Walsh, N. G. (2004). Treeless subalpine vegetation of the Kosciuszko region. Cunninghamia, 8(4), 439-452.

Direct Evidence Regulatory Framework Government

Cunningham, S. C., & Walsh, N. G. (2004). Treeless subalpine vegetation of the Kosciuszko region. Cunninghamia, 8(4), 439-452.

View Source

Foulkes, J., & Corkrey, R. (2021). Assessing the post-fire recovery of alpine shrublands: A study in the Tasmanian Highlands. Fire, 4(3), 32.

Contextual Support Direct Evidence Journal

Foulkes, J., & Corkrey, R. (2021). Assessing the post-fire recovery of alpine shrublands: A study in the Tasmanian Highlands. Fire, 4(3), 32.

View Source

Preview of Long-term Vegetation Change in Relation to Cattle Grazing in Subalpine Grassland and Heathland on the Bogong High Plains - DCCEEW, accessed on May 25, 2025,

Long-term Vegetation Change in Relation to Cattle Grazing in Subalpine Grassland and Heathland on the Bogong High Plains - DCCEEW, accessed on May 25, 2025,

Contextual Support Journal

Wood, S. W., et al. (2015). The Ausplots Forest Monitoring Network: Tall eucalypt forests. PLOS ONE.

View Source

Private Forests Tasmania (2021). Management of Natural regeneration in eucalypt plantations.

Direct Evidence Journal

Private Forests Tasmania (2021). Management of Natural regeneration in eucalypt plantations.

View Source

Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW - FAOLEX, accessed May 15, 2025

Direct Evidence Journal

Forestry Corporation of NSW (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern New South Wales.

View Source

Preview of Schedule-1-Management-Standards-and-Procedures-for-timber-harvesting-operations-in-Victorias-State-forests.pdf, accessed March 28, 2026,

Schedule-1-Management-Standards-and-Procedures-for-timber-harvesting-operations-in-Victorias-State-forests.pdf, accessed March 28, 2026,

Contextual Support Journal

Wahren, C. H., Papst, W. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Long-term vegetation change in the Bogong High Plains, Victoria.

View Source

Technical Bulletin 2: Eucalyptus delegatensis forests

Direct Evidence Journal

New South Wales Government. (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW.

View Source

Benchmark Value

Scoring Curve

Contributing Benchmarks

Evidence & Context

Sources (1)

Supporting Sources (8)

Context

Lifecycle

Notes

Related Benchmarks