I used area-based sampling techniques to sample the Mohn Mill site in the virtual forest instruction. The systematic procedure was the fastest way to sample data, requiring only 12 hours, whereas the other techniques took about 13 hours .
I have calculated the percent errors for each sampling technique below:
Systematic Percent Errors:
Red Maple (Common): 0.029%
Eastern Hemlock (Common): 0.59%
American Basswood (Rare): 7.23%
Yellow Birch (Rare): 8.00%
Random Percent Errors:
Red Maple (Common): 0.084%
Eastern Hemlock (Common): 0.76%
American Basswood (Rare): 8.0%
Yellow Birch (Rare): 8.0%
Haphazard Percent Errors:
Red Maple (Common): 0.065%
Eastern Hemlock (Common): 4.02%
American Basswood (Rare): 8.0%
Yellow Birch (Rare): 8.0%
The experimenter(s) conducting the study will determine if these procedures are accurate. For widespread species, each method produced comparable errors. The method with the lowest average percent mistakes is the most accurate for both common and unusual species. In this instance, the random procedure with a 0.029% calculation yielded the lowest average for common species.
The computed systematic sampling methodology was the most accurate method for uncommon species. When employing random procedures instead of systematic ones, the accuracy for uncommon species decreased. Despite the fact that the study’s Yellow Birch percent error remained constant.
In this instance, the 24 sample size was insufficient for various aspects of the investigation. To count the number of species in the community, the 24 sample locations were adequate. In addition to the four species mentioned above, this research also included Sweet Birch, Witch Hazel, Hawthorn, and White Oak. Since several species had estimated densities of 0, I don’t believe the sample size of 24 was adequate to determine the abundance of each species.
Roopkamalbir kaur
interesting!