Systematic, Random and Haphazard sampling techniques were used in the area-based method in the virtual forest tutorial. The systematic approach was most effective in terms of timing. The Random was a little quicker, but the other two took about the same time.
- Systematic 12 h 35 m
- Random 12 h 40 m
- Haphazard 12 h 41 m
Systematic Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(564.0-469.9)/469.9*100
=20%
The least common species was the White Pine. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(12.0-8.4)/8.4*100
=42.8%
Random Sampling Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(508.3-469.9)/469.9*100
=8.1%
The least common species was the White Pine. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(0-8.4)/8.4*100
=100%
Haphazard Sampling Strategy:
The most common species was the Eastern Hemlock. The percentage error for this species is:
(E – T)/T*100
(429.2-469.9)/469.9*100
=8.6%
The least common species was the White Pine.
White Pine:
(E – T)/T*100
(12.5-8.4)/8.4*100
=48.8%
The most accurate sampling strategy for the common species is the Random Sampling Strategy. The most accurate sampling strategy for the rare species, the White Pine, is the Systematic Sampling Strategy. Overall, I believe the Haphazard Sampling Strategy was the most accurate because there were fewer discrepancies in the data, resulting in lower percentage error rates overall when the drastic increase in error for rare species was considered. However, I disagree that 24 points in the sample were enough to accurately reflect the number of species. When compared to the size of the area being studied, the sample size was relatively small. Because of this, the density and species found may not be accurately represented. Therefore, I do not think there were enough data points to make a reliable estimate of the population size of these species.
