| Species | Density Percentage (%) Error | ||
| Systematic (Area) | Random (Distance) | Haphazard (Area) | |
| Eastern Hemlock |
1.57 |
11.4 |
43.65 |
| Sweet Birch |
39.74 |
46.55 |
8.66 |
|
Yellow Birch |
19.65 |
11.94 |
56.84 |
|
Chestnut Oak |
57.14 |
4.23 |
0 |
|
Red Maple |
33.39 |
11.94 |
8.66 |
Striped Maple |
76.0 |
19.43 |
28.57 |
White Pine |
48.8 |
100 |
48.81 |
- The distance-based, random sampling was the most efficient in terms of time spent sampling. It took 4 h 6 min compared to 12-13 h with haphazard and systemic sampling.
- The two most common species were Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch because they had the highest frequencies (73% and 43% respectively). The percent error values are shown in bold in table above. The two most common species were Striped Maple and White Pine because they had the lowest frequencies (6% and 4% respectively). The percent error values are shown in italics in the table above.
- There was minimal change in sampling accuracy between rare and common species. For example, there were percent error values from each sampling strategy that were smaller in magnitude in common compared to rare species (e.g. 1.57% compared to 76% or 48.8% in systematic sampling). Likewise, There was no obvious sampling strategy that was more accurate for rare or common species because of the inconsistency/ large range in percent error values.
- I think that 24 sample points were sufficient enough to capture all the species, but not their abundances within the community. More sample points would likely help decrease the percent error difference between the actual and estimated data.
Cheers,
Olivia Spooner