Sampling Techniques in a virtual forest

The three sampling strategies used in the virtual forests sampling theory exercise were systematic, random and haphazard. I utilized the area-based method with the other option being distance.

Results are as follows:

Systematic: 12 hours 6 minutes

Random: 12 hours 45 minutes

Haphazard: 12 hours 38 minutes

Random and haphazard are not overly different for sampling time, systematic was the fastest with a difference of 39 minutes.

Calculate the percentage error for the different sampling techniques for both common and rare species. What was the most accurate sampling strategy for common species?

Systematic sampling percent error for common species Eastern Hemlock and rare species White Pine was 7.8% and 98.8% respectively. Random sampling methods produced 43.6% and 98.8% percent error respectively. Haphazard was 17.5% and 50.0% respectively.

What was the most accurate for rare species? Did the accuracy stay the same or decline for rare species?

There was no real accurate sampling method for rare species and varied greatly between different sampling methods as seen in Table 1.

Was 24 a sufficient number of sample points to capture the number of species in this community? Was it enough sample points to accurately estimate the abundance of these species?

For sake of the exercise, 24 sample points was sufficient enough to collect data to display all species found in the virtual forest, however I would recommend a more robust sample size of 50 sample sites for both number of species and for abundance sampling since a larger sample size is always better and lowers your percent error.

Table 1. Comparison of percent error to actual density of tree species within the Snyders-Middlesworth Natural Area in a virtual sampling exercise