The most time efficient method was the haphazard method. This method took 12 hours and 30 minutes, whereas the systematic sampling took 12 hours and 35 minutes, and random sampling took 12 hours and 50 minutes to complete. The difference between the fastest and slowest method was 10 minutes, which is not a major difference in time efficiency.
When comparing the actual data to the estimated data, we can see that for the actual data the densities are higher than estimated. For example, when looking at Yellow Birch, the actual density is 108.9 but the estimated is 72.0.
Systematic Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(440.0-469.9)/469.9*100
=6.4%
The least common species was the White Pine. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(28.0-8.4)/8.4*100
=233.3%
Random Sampling Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(454.2-469.9)/469.9*100
=3.3%
The least common species was the White Pine. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(12.5-8.4)/8.4*100
=48.8%
Haphazard Sampling Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(445.8-469.9)/469.9*100
=5.1%
The least common species was the White Pine. The Striped Maple and White Pine were predicted to be the same in this category and therefore I have included calculations for both species. The percentage error for these species are:
White Pine:
(E – T)/T*100
(8.3-8.4)/8.4*100
=1.2%
Striped Maple:
(E – T)/T*100
(8.3-17.5)/17.5*100
=52.6%
The most accurate sampling strategy for the common species is the Random Sampling Strategy. The most accurate sampling strategy for the rare species, the White Pine, is the Haphazard Sampling Strategy. The accuracy for the White Pine was far from accurate for the Systematic Strategy or the Random Sampling Strategy, as the estimated tree density was much higher than the actual density causing the percentage error to be very high. Overall, I think the Haphazard Sampling Strategy was the most accurate as there was less discrepancies in the data and resulted in lower percentage error rates overall when taking into consideration the drastic increase in error for rare species. The accuracy declined for the rare species in both Random Sampling and Systematic strategies, but was close to accurate when using the Haphazard Sampling Strategy. I do not think 24 was a sufficient number of sample points to capture the number of species. The area was quite large and the sample size in comparison was rather small. This can lead to discrepancies in the data and lead to a less accurate representation of density and species found. Therefore I do not think it was enough sample points to accurately estimate the abundance of these species.
