|
Systematic % of Error |
Random Sampling % of Error |
Haphazard or subjective sampling % of Error |
||
|
Eastern hemlock (most common species) |
26.8% |
9.3% |
3.7% |
|
|
Sweet Birch (most common species) |
49.8% |
81.3% |
32.6% |
|
|
Striped Maple (rarest species) |
31.4% |
73.7% |
52.6% |
|
|
White Pine (rarest species) |
4.8% |
107.1% |
147.6% |
(Comparison of density data accuracy collected with Systematic, Random, and Haphazard sampling techniques)
All of the times for the different sampling techniques were fairly close, with the most efficient being the random sampling at an estimated 12 hours and 15 minutes. For the most common species, the sampling technique with the least amount of error was haphazard/subjective. However, for the rarest species, the most accurate technique was systematic sampling. With random and haphazard sampling the accuracy decreased with the decline in species abundance, however, this was not the case with systematic sampling. To see what sampling technique had the most accuracy overall I found the average percentage of error in total for each technique. The systemic sampling technique had the lowest average of error and was, therefore, most accurate, however as mentioned earlier when sampling just the most common species it is most accurate to use the Haphazard technique. I believe that a sample size of 24 was sufficient for some areas of the study but not all. For example, the estimated frequency of each species was very close to the actual frequency and therefore 24 was sufficient for collecting that data. However, the estimated data for density lacked accuracy for the rarer species. I think doubling the sample size to 50 or more would help improve the accuracy for this area.