From the virtual forest tutorial, I utilized three different sampling techniques—systematic, random, and haphazard—to assess their effectiveness and precision. Systematic sampling, due to its predetermined methodology, required more time for data collection. In contrast, random sampling proved quicker as it allowed for faster sampling without a specified sequence. Haphazard sampling, chosen subjectively, had a variable duration contingent upon the selection of sites.
Regarding the most prevalent coffee plant species, both systematic and random sampling demonstrated minimal percentage errors, accurately representing their abundance. However, when considering the rarest species, the haphazard method exhibited lower percentage errors. Intriguingly, the accuracy of estimation appeared to fluctuate depending on species abundance. Systematic and random approaches displayed greater accuracy for common species, while the haphazard technique excelled in precisely measuring rarer species. While no single method proved universally superior, systematic and random sampling methods consistently provided reliable estimations for common species. Conversely, the haphazard approach excelled in accurately assessing rarer species.
I think there is some confusion here, did you use the exercise linked from Moodle? This is a virtual exercise…Please list some of the details like the specific species and their error rates for most common and rare.