Bare Ground
Benchmark Value
Scoring Curve
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.
Contributing Benchmarks
Evidence & Context
"Bog / wet heath... Mean (± SE) 31 ± 6 Range 5–75."
Percentage of bare soil estimated at the site
This benchmark represents the natural background percentage of bare soil in bog and wet heath areas within the alpine and subalpine biome, important for hydrologically sensitive areas.
Baseline for hydrologically sensitive areas
Sources (1)
Cunningham, S. C., & Walsh, N. G. (2004). Treeless subalpine vegetation of the Kosciuszko region. Cunninghamia, 8(4), 439-452.
View SourceSupporting Sources (8)
Additional references from the underlying research that informed this benchmark.
ABARES (2023). Indicator 5.1a: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the global carbon cycle. Australia's State of the Forests Report.
View SourceFoulkes, J., & Corkrey, R. (2021). Assessing the post-fire recovery of alpine shrublands: A study in the Tasmanian Highlands. Fire, 4(3), 32.
View SourceWood, S. W., et al. (2015). The Ausplots Forest Monitoring Network: Tall eucalypt forests. PLOS ONE.
View SourcePrivate Forests Tasmania (2021). Management of Natural regeneration in eucalypt plantations.
View SourceForestry Corporation of NSW (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern New South Wales.
View SourceWahren, C. H., Papst, W. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Long-term vegetation change in the Bogong High Plains, Victoria.
View SourceForest Practices Authority Tasmania (2010). Technical Bulletin 2: Eucalyptus delegatensis forests.
View SourceNew South Wales Government. (2022). Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Southern NSW.
View Source