For writing this post I used three sampling techniques – systematic, random and subjective (haphazard). Systematic technique took 12 hours and 6 minutes, random – 12 hours and 42 minutes , subjective (haphazard) – 12 hours and 47 minutes.
Which technique had the fastest estimated sampling time? Did the accuracy change with species abundance? Was one sampling strategy more accurate than another?
- With 12 hours and 6 minutes systematic technique was the fastest sampling method of all three.
- The percentage of errors is relatively low (from 7.79% to 38.3%) with most abundant species while the percentage with most rare species is high (from 48.81% to 100%)
- Most accurate sampling strategy was subjective with an average percentage of errors of 41.04%. Least accurate was systematic strategy with an average percentage of errors of 26%
Compare the percentage error of the different strategies for the two most common and two rarest species.
Two most abundant species:
- Eastern Hemlock
- % error of systematic technique = (433.3 – 469.9)/469.9 x 100 = 7.79%
- % error of random technique = (341.7 – 469.9)/469.9 x 100 = 27.28%
- % error of subjective technique = (475 – 469.9)/469.9 x 100 = 1.08%
- Sweet Birch
- % error of systematic technique = (95.8 – 117.5)/117.5 x 100 = 18.47%
- % error of random technique = (108.3 – 117.5)/117.5 x 100 = 7.83%
- % error of subjective technique = (162.5 – 117.5)/117.5 x 100 = 38.3%
Two rarest species:
- Striped maple
- % error of systematic technique = (0.0 – 17.5)/17.5 x 100 = 100%
- % error of random technique = (29.2 – 17.5)/17.5 x 100 = 66.86%
- % error of subjective technique = (4.2 – 17.5)/17.5 x 100 = 76%
- White pine
- % error of systematic technique = (16.7 – 8.4)/8.4 x 100 = 98.80%
- % error of random technique = (0.0 – 8.4)/8.4 x 100 = 100%
- % error of subjective technique = (12.5 – 8.4)/8.4 x 100 = 48.81%