Table 1: The absolute and relative sizes of the two principal strata, the ILZ and the ELZ, used to divide the continent.

Table 2: A summary description of the 34 landcover types derived from the original 230 categories of the Natural Vegetation dataset of AUSLIG (1990). The figure in brackets under the Code symbol is the percentage projected foliage cover (pfc).

Table 3: A statistical summary of the 34 landcover types that were the basic ecological strata for this study. The nature and severity of disturbance are determined for each strata within the Intensive and Extensive Landuse Zones. The areas are in km2. The most extensive landcover type in each zone (rank 1) is underlined.

Table 4: The aggregation of the AUSLIG tenures into six groups that offer different levels of protection against future landcover disturbance.

Table 5: A summary of the five classes of clearing disturbance aggregated for the Intensive landuse Zone (ILZ) and for the continent.

Table 6: A summary of the relative distribution (%) of clearing within each landcover type. The grasslands (xG) and low shrublands (xZ2) were excluded. The index Loss was the sum of the cleared and thinned classes.

Table 7: The distribution of absolute area (km2) of the three critical disturbance classes within the six tenure types of the ILZ.

Table 8: The distribution of the area of the ELZ among the four landcover disturbance classes.

Table 9: The proportion of each landcover type within the ELZ allocated to each of the four disturbance classes.

Table 10: The proportion of the ILZ of each state in the three critical disturbance classes. The first column is the proportion of each state within the ILZ.

Table 11: The proportion of the ELZ of each state in the three critical disturbance classes. The first column is the proportion of each state within the ELZ.

Table 12: Combining the ILZ and ELZ disturbance classes to produce a continental aggregate of disturbed area.

Table 13: A summary of the areas (km2) in each of the three key disturbance classes for each of the landcover types of the ILZ. The index Loss was calculated as the percentage of the total area of each landcover type that was thinned and cleared. The disturbance score was assigned thus: no clearing (-); <10% (*); 11-30% (**); >31% (***).

Table 14: The distribution of relative area (%) of the four disturbance levels for all landcover types within the ELZ. The score was based on the sum of the products of the percentage areas and the disturbance ratings, slight (0) to significant (2), and assigned 0-50 was low (*); 50-100 was moderate (**); >100 was high (***).

Table 15: The distribution of relative area (%) of the six tenure levels for all landcover types within the ILZ and ELZ. The score was based on the mean sum of the products of the percentage areas and the tenure protection ratings that are lowest with tenure type 1 and highest with tenure type 6.

Table 16: A summary of the scores assigned to each landcover type based on the relative distribution of the densities of the four feral species in both the ILZ and ELZ.

Table 17: A summary of the disturbance scores assigned to each landcover type based on fire season and fire frequency in both the ILZ and ELZ.