The first technique, sampling along a topographic gradient had the fastest sampling time, but only by an estimated 3 minutes compared to the second sampling method. Therefore, the two first sampling methods were roughly equivalent when it comes to efficiency in time, while the third technique was the least efficient.
The two most common species were Eastern Hemlock (systemic error: 6.4%, random error: 9.6%, haphazard error: 2.1%) and Sweet Birch (systemic error: 1.3%, random error: 7.8%, haphazard error: 14.9%). The two least common species were Striped Maple (systemic error: 100%, random error: 52.5%, haphazard error: 100%) and White Pine (systemic error: 100%, random error: 100%, haphazard error: 42.9%). Clearly, the sampling errors were much higher for the rare species than they were for the common species. Therefore, the sampling was more accurate for all sampling methods for the common species. Overall, it appears that the systemic sampling had the lowest error in the common species. The errors for the uncommon species seem too high overall to make a proper assessment of which method has the lowest error.
Interesting beginnings here, Isaac.
It’s great that you narrowed down your sampling technique early on. Finding the most efficient and accurate technique will no doubt help you as things progress.
I wonder what would resolve the error with rare species in another study? Broader area and sample sets? Another method?
Joel