Out of the three strategies that I did, systematic sampling was the fastest in terms of sampling time while random sampling was slowest.
In terms of accuracy, the sampling strategies seems to be influenced by the abundance of the species. The two most common species from my sampling was Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch which showed lower percentage errors across all methods compared to rare species like Striped Maple and White Pine. The sampling accuracy tends to decrease with the rarity of the species.
Percentage Errors for Common Species:
| Species | Systematic (%) | Random (%) | Haphazard (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Hemlock | 15.00 | 37.00 | 34.00 |
| Sweet Birch | 93.00 | 100.00 | 25.00 |
Percentage Errors for Rare Species:
| Species | Systematic (%) | Random (%) | Haphazard (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Striped Maple | 100.00 | -22.00 | -59.00 |
| White Pine | 0.00 | -44.00 | 0.00 |
Differentiation among the 3 strategies’ accuracy:
-
Systematic Sampling: This method has consistent results across both common and rare species, yet it showed a high error rate for Striped Maple.
-
Random Sampling: This method had the highest errors overall, however striped maple gave a better percentage error, which suggests that this balance in the estimation was because of the randomness
-
Haphazard Sampling: This method showed mixed results, with very low errors for White Pine but high errors for Striped Maple. Its accuracy for common species was decent, especially for Sweet Birch.
Based on the observations, systematic sampling provided a good balance between speed and accuracy for common species, while random sampling might be better for rarer species even with its longer time needed.