Using the the virtual tree tutorial, I attempted the three sampling techniques systematic, random, and haphazard using the Mohn Mill community.
- Using the random y-value selected of y=5, so the alternating values for y= 5 and 10; the x-values ranged from 5 to 245. The time total estimated was 4 hours and 4 minutes. The percent error for the most common species were 0.32% and 2.82%; and the percent error for the rarest species found in the samplings was 143.43%
- Using the completely random 24 values, the total time estimate was 4 hours and 40 minutes. The percent errors for the most common species found was 29.6% and 54.5%; and the percent error for the rarest species found in all three samplings was 6.06%
- Lastly, the haphazard sampling had a total time estimated of 4 hours and 21 minutes. The percent errors for the most common species found were 1.36% and 97.32% and the percent error for the rarest species was 65.66%
The systematic sampling had the fastest estimated sampling time and relatively accurate for the most common species found, but the percent errors were relatively high for the rarer species.
The random sampling was the longest time and some of the higher percent errors for the more common species, but a relatively low percent error for the rarer species.
The haphazard had relative accuracy with he most common species, but other common and rare species had large percent errors.
I this example, it seems random or systematic random may be the more accurate methodology, also the more efficient.
If we were only looking to gather information on the most common species, 24 data points may be enough to get a relatively accurate estimate, but it would not be enough to accurately estimate the rarer species.