I used the area-based method for the following exercise.
Which technique had the fastest estimated sampling time?
The technique that had the fastest estimated sampling time was the systematic technique, at 12 hours and 7 minutes. The others had times of 12 hours and 37 minutes (random) and 12 hours and 41 minutes (haphazard).
Compare the percentage error of the different strategies for the two most common and two rarest species.
Haphazard:
Eastern hemlock: 20%
Sweet birch: 28%
Striped maple: 43%
White pine: 50%
Random sampling:
Eastern hemlock: 4.2%
Sweet birch: 11%
Striped maple: same as systematic (28%)
White pine: 100%
Systematic:
Eastern hemlock: 36%
Sweet birch: 25%
Striped maple: 28%
White pine: 1.2%
In my results, the random sampling technique had the lowest percentage error for the two most common species (eastern hemlock and sweet birch). For the two rarest species, striped maple and white pine, the systematic technique had the lowest percentage errors. Although, the random sampling had the same percentage error as systematic sampling for the striped maple, it did not count any white pine, and therefore had a percentage error of 100%, making the systematic sampling method more accurate for the rarest species.
Did the accuracy change with species abundance? Was one sampling strategy more accurate than another?
In both the haphazard and random sampling techniques, the accuracy did change with species abundance, whereby the largest percentage errors were seen in the less abundant species (striped maple and white pine) and the smallest percentage errors seen in the most abundant species (eastern hemlock and sweet birch). Although, in the systematic technique, the largest percentage error calculated across all sampled species was 36% (eastern hemlock), compared to the much larger percent errors in the other two techniques, making the systematic sampling technique the most accurate.