Sampling of tree Communities

Which technique is the most efficient in terms of time spent sampling?

In terms of time, Strategic sampling was the most efficient way of sampling, only 30 mins faster then the other techniques n(15 hours, 13 minutes) .

Compare the actual densities with the estimated (data) densities from your sampling.

In majority of cases, the random sampling techniques are higher in density then the actual density provided (per species). Haphazard tends to be higher, and systematic tends to be over or under by 2% for each species. Overall the actual density was 1.8, and the density for haphazardly and random was at 2, and systematic was at 1.7

Calculate the percentage error for the different sampling techniques for both common and rare species.

Common (Red Maple) – Haz: 17.5 %, Random: 1.76% Strategic: -8.25%

Rare (White Ash)- Haz: 0.8% Random: 0% Strategic: 0% (if I did this correctly)

What was the most accurate sampling strategy for common species?

without a doubt the most accurate sampling strategy for common sampling would be strategic methods of sampling.

What was the most accurate for rare species? Did the accuracy stay the same or decline for rare species?

Again for rare species, strategic methods of sampling was still most accurate, and was actually the same, rather then declining. Pretty cool to see.

Was 24 a sufficient number of sample points to capture the number of species in this community?Was it enough sample points to accurately estimate the abundance of these species?

I actually did this experience twice, and the second time I used 30 sample points which I found worked way better. It gave me a more accurate representation of the area., allowing for a better chance of some of the more unique species to be represented.

Emily