I’ve moved from field observations to virtual explorations in the ongoing investigation of Riverside Park and the complex world of avian life. Motivated by the rich ecosystem recorded in Riverside Park, I used a range of sampling techniques in the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area model. This stage of my research attempts to connect the knowledge from the Riverside Park study in real life with the analytical methods employed in the tutorial on the virtual forest.
1. Methods of Sampling in the Virtual Forest:
In the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area simulation, I used three different sampling techniques to replicate the various environmental gradients seen in Riverside Park:
| Sampling Strategy | Method Description | Plants Sampled | Species Identified | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random Sampling | Generated a random list of 30 points to ensure equal chances for all locations. Sampled 95 plants. Identified 5 species. Sampling time: 8 hours and 47 minutes. | 95 | 5 | |
| Systematic Sampling | Used 35 evenly distributed locations across the forest. Sampled every 4th location. Resulted in 95 plants sampled, identifying 5 species. Faster sampling time: 8 hours and 12 minutes. | 95 | 5 | |
| Haphazard Sampling | Selected 30 arbitrary points for sampling, resulting in the sampling of 86 plants and identifying 6 species. Sampling time: 9 hours. | 86 | 6 |
2. Comparison Study and Percentage Error:
Fastest Sampling Time: 8 hours and 12 minutes was the fastest sampling time for systematic sampling, which was consistent with the efficiency I saw in my fieldwork.
Comparing the Abundance of Species:
Red maple and eastern hemlock were the two most prevalent species in both Riverside Park and the virtual forest.
White pine and striped maple were the least common species.
Comparing percentage errors:
| Species | Random Sampling | Systematic Sampling | Haphazard Sampling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Maple | 1.1% | 0.3% | 1.7% |
| Eastern Hemlock | 1.7% | 1.6% | 1.0% |
| White Pine | 5.1% | 3.7% | 0% |
| Striped Maple | 7.7% | 1.3% | 1.5% |
3. Conclusions and Patterns:
Some of the difficulties encountered in Riverside Park were mirrored in the patterns seen in the virtual forest. Across all methods, common species showed lower percentage errors, indicating consistent accuracy. Rarer species, on the other hand, showed larger errors with random sampling, highlighting the necessity of more sophisticated methods.
Across all species, systematic sampling consistently showed smaller percentage errors, demonstrating dependability even with fluctuating abundances. While both random and systematic sampling yielded positive results, systematic sampling also had the added benefit of being the fastest.
4. Combining Field Notes and Integration:
The combination of my virtual simulations and my in-person observations made in Riverside Park helps to weave a more comprehensive scientific picture as I travel through this scientific journey. The numerical comparisons highlight how multifaceted ecological research is and lay the groundwork for further studies within the framework of my main project.
This smooth transition between the virtual forest simulations and the real-world observations at Riverside Park improves our comprehension of ecological systems and highlights the significance of customized sampling techniques in scientific research. Every step I take in my investigation into the complexities of bird life and how it interacts with the environment builds on the groundwork established in Riverside Park.