| Study units | Type of sampling and % error | ||
| Tree type (True Density) | Systematic | Random | Haphazard |
| Eastern Hemlock (469.9) | 22.11 | 8.51 | 28.17 |
| Red maple (118.9) | 27.17 | 38.44 | 9.41 |
| Sweet birch (117.5) | 10.55 | 61.11 | 32.76 |
| Yellow birch (108.9) | 10.56 | 34.34 | 27.46 |
| Chestnut oak (87.5) | 36.11 | 4.57 | 17.94 |
| Striped maple (17.5) | 85.71 | 100 | 100 |
| White pine (8.4) | 100 | 100 | 71.43 |
Which technique had the fastest estimated sampling time?
The systematic sampling had the shortest estimated sampling time.
Compare the percentage error of the different strategies for the two most common and two rarest species.
The percent error of the two most common species ranged between 9.41-38.44% while the percent error of the two rarest species ranged from 71.43-100%. This is quite the difference. The rarest species range is so high because in some samples, no individuals were sampled, leading to an estimate of 0.
Did the accuracy change with species abundance?
The accuracy does change with species abundance when sampling for density. The species with higher density have more accurate results than those with lower density. If the rare species show up in a few samples the estimate is high but if they don’t show up in any samples then the estimate is 0. Common species will probably show up in many samples, it is unlikely that they won’t show up in any.
Was one sampling strategy more accurate than another?
Excluding the two rarest species: the mean percent error, for systematic it is 21.30%, for haphazard is 23.14% and for random sampling is 29.39%. This would lead me to say that systematic was the most accurate, however these values are close and inconclusive.
To be more accurate, more samples should be taken.