LnRiLWZpZWxke21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MC43NmVtfS50Yi1maWVsZC0tbGVmdHt0ZXh0LWFsaWduOmxlZnR9LnRiLWZpZWxkLS1jZW50ZXJ7dGV4dC1hbGlnbjpjZW50ZXJ9LnRiLWZpZWxkLS1yaWdodHt0ZXh0LWFsaWduOnJpZ2h0fS50Yi1maWVsZF9fc2t5cGVfcHJldmlld3twYWRkaW5nOjEwcHggMjBweDtib3JkZXItcmFkaXVzOjNweDtjb2xvcjojZmZmO2JhY2tncm91bmQ6IzAwYWZlZTtkaXNwbGF5OmlubGluZS1ibG9ja311bC5nbGlkZV9fc2xpZGVze21hcmdpbjowfQ==
IEBtZWRpYSBvbmx5IHNjcmVlbiBhbmQgKG1heC13aWR0aDogNzgxcHgpIHsgICB9IEBtZWRpYSBvbmx5IHNjcmVlbiBhbmQgKG1heC13aWR0aDogNTk5cHgpIHsgICB9IA==
- Systematic has the least amount of sampling time for me (12 hours, 30 mins). Random was 12 hours 46 minutes and haphazard was 12 hours 58 minutes. These results make sense in theory, but would likely be much greater if conducted in real life. These methods do not involve the difference in time it would take to get each location and conduct each sampling method. It is likely that each method would have the same relationship (i.e., systematic would take the least amount of time, and haphazard would take the most but we’d likely add on 20 minutes to the final sampling time).
- Percent error increased with rarity of the species. Systematic sampling method was most accurate while random was the least. Haphazard was the most accurate, and random was the least.