Simple Random
Using random or systemic sampling and the area based method, my random (x,y) quadrats were (90, 30), meaning I selected the quadrat (0, 30) as my starting point. The sample points can be seen in the image below, as well as the calculations:
Random Sampling
Haphazard
I chose my 24 points at complete random, or “subjectively without preconceived bias.”
Which technique had the fastest estimated sampling time?
Simple random took 12 hours and 35 minutes to sample, random sampling was 12 hours and 33 minutes and haphazard was 12 hours and 28 minutes; meaning, haphazard had the fastest sampling time.
Compare the percentage error of the different strategies for the two most common and two rarest species.
Most 2 common species: Eastern Hemlock, Sweet Birch
Simple Random: 20%, 18%
Random: 31%, 32%
Haphazard: 13%, 14%
Most 2 rarest species: Striped Maple, White Pine
Simple Random: 8%, 90%
Random: 47%, 4.5%
Haphazard: 15%, 76%
Did the accuracy change with species abundance?
No, it seems that accuracy did not change with species abundance. However, Haphazard sampling had the lowest percent error for common species.
Was one sampling strategy more accurate than another?
All sampling strategies seem to be in close competition with one another, but from my sample plots, Simple Random was able to observe the most amount of species.
From my data I do not believe that 24 was enough sampling quadrants to gain an accurate estimate of abundance for the tree species. More plots to gain a larger insight would help.
