The three sampling methods I used in the virtual forests sampling theory exercise were simple random, random and haphazard sampling.
The time results are as follows:
Simple: 12 hours, 41 minutes
Random: 12 hours, 36 minutes
Haphazard: 13 hours
There is not a significant difference in time between the three methods, however random sampling was the fastest method by a total of 5 minutes over simple.
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? What was the most accurate for rare species? Did the accuracy stay the same or decline for rare species?
|
Percent Error (%) |
|||
|
|
Simple |
Random |
Haphazard |
|
Eastern Hemlock |
30.26 |
11.51 |
13.2 |
|
Yellow Birch |
37.7 |
17.53 |
17.53 |
|
Striped Maple |
18.85 |
31.42 |
82.85 |
|
White Pine |
50 |
42.86 |
52.38 |
The most common sampling strategy for common species was random sampling. The most accurate strategy for rare species was simple sampling. The accuracy declined significantly for rare species.
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 the purposes of this exercise 24 sampling points was enough to capture the number of species in this community. A larger sampling size would have likely decreased the accuracy for the abundance of these species.