The community I sampled for this exercise was the Snyder- Middleswarth Natural Area. I chose to use area sampling rather than distance sampling since it is more relevant to my research project. Of the three sampling methods, systematic was the most efficient since this sampling took 12hr 25 min. The sampling times were as follows:
- Systematic: 12hr 25min
- Haphazard: 12hr 44min
- Random: 12hr 51 min
These results also conclude that random was the least efficient sampling method.
The percent errors were calculated for the most and second most common species and the most and second most rare species for each of the sampling methods. These results are as follows:
Haphazard
|
|
Species |
Percent Error |
|
Most Common |
Eastern Hemlock |
10.56 |
|
Second Most Common |
Sweet Birch |
11.85 |
|
Most Rare |
White Pine |
49.70 |
|
Second Most Rare |
Striped Maple |
110.84 |
Sample calculation:
Eastern Hemlock: (469.9-425)/425*100= 10.56
Systematic
|
|
Species |
Percent Error |
|
Most Common |
Eastern Hemlock |
6.02 |
|
Second Most Common |
Sweet Birch |
6.00 |
|
Most Rare |
Red Maple |
24.11 |
|
Second Most Rare |
Chestnut Oak |
16.67 |
Sample calculation:
Red Maple: (118.9-95.8)/95.8*100= 24.11
Random
|
|
Species |
Percent Error |
|
Most Common |
Eastern Hemlock |
17.68 |
|
Second Most Common |
Sweet Birch |
17.08 |
|
Most Rare |
Striped Maple |
47.45 |
|
Second Most Rare |
Red Maple |
1.89 |
Sample calculation:
Striped Maple: (17.5-33.3)/33.3*100= 47.45
The most accurate sampling method for common species was systematic sampling. The most accurate sampling method for rare species was also systematic. Based on the percent error calculations, the values for the common species had close to the same accuracy for all sampling methods, whereas a lot more variation occurred with the accuracy for rare species. This suggests that 24 samples was effective for estimating the abundance of common species but more samples would be needed to accurately estimate the abundance of rare species.