In the virtual forest sampling theory exercise, the three sampling strategies used include systematic, haphazard and random. I used distance along with an area-based method for my sampling techniques. The results of my samplings of virtual forest are below, though looking over the results it can be said that the random and haphazard sampling times are not very much different while the systematic sampling was faster among all three.
Systematic: 12 hours and 6 minutes
Random: 12 hours and 44 minutes
Haphazard: 12 hours and 39 minutes
|
Species |
Density |
Data for Systematic samples |
% error for systematic sampling |
Data for random samples |
%error for systematic sampling |
Data for haphazard samples |
%error in haphazard sampling |
|
White pine |
8.4 |
16.5 |
96.4 |
16.4 |
94.1 |
4.3 |
48.8 |
|
Striped maple |
17.3 |
0 |
100 |
12.8 |
28.91 |
0 |
100 |
|
Red maple |
118.9 |
128 |
7.7 |
41.6 |
65.01 |
116.5 |
2.02 |
|
Chestnut oak |
87.5 |
87.6 |
0.11 |
25.4 |
71 |
95.8 |
9.5 |
|
Yellow birch |
108.9 |
142 |
30.4 |
112.8 |
3.58 |
78.9 |
27.5 |
|
Sweet birch |
118.2 |
96.8 |
18.1 |
113 |
4.40 |
92.2 |
22 |
|
Eastern hemlock |
469.9 |
433.8 |
7.7 |
676 |
43.9 |
387.6 |
17.5 |
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?
Ans: The percentage error of different sampling techniques for common and rare species below
- The random method produced 43.9% with 94.1% error.
- The haphazard method produced 17.5% and 48.8% errors.
- The systematic method produced 7.7% and 96.4% errors.
What was the most accurate for rare species? Did the accuracy stay the same or decline for rare species?
Ans: There is no sampling method accuracy for rare species. The accuracy varies with different sampling techniques as shown in the table above.
Was 24 enough sample points to capture the number of species in this community? Was it enough sample points to accurately estimate the abundance of these species?
Ans : In my opinion, the 24 sample points were sufficient for the data collection of all possible species found in the virtual forest. Though, a higher number would have given much lesser percentage errors in samplings such as either 50 sample points or 75 sample points.