Blog Post 4: Sampling Strategies

I applied the area-based method to all three of the sampling procedures (random, systematic, and haphazard) in the forest sampling tutorial. Surveying using the Haphazard sampling approach took the least amount of time (12 h 32 m), followed by systematic sampling (12 h 37 m) and random sampling (13 h 17 m). The truth that random became a touch quicker than methodical stunned me.
The maximum customary species, consistent with my sampling results, have been Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch, while the two least unusual species had been White Pine and Striped Maple. Systematic sampling proved to be the correct method for the 2 most unusual species, showing the lowest percentage of blunders in comparison to the actual densities. When inspecting random sampling from the systematic mistakes, the share of mistakes rose. White pine stood out to me with a percentage of 185.71, indicating that the measurements are erroneous or untrustworthy. Moreover, the Red Maple percentage for the systematic became more than 20%, opposite to my expectation that the systematic would be exceptional. Eleven.02 and 19.42% (much less than 20%) of fingers are random and haphazard! While sure species of the random approach are over 20%, the bulk of species within the Haphazard were more than 20%, indicating that this approach isn’t the best.

Haphazard sampling does not appear to be a very effective sample technique overall. For every species studied, the percentage of mistakes was greater than what would seem logical. Both the systematic and random sampling approaches have advantages and disadvantages in the context of the lesson. Rare species and species with intermediate densities appeared to be better captured by random sampling. But when species densities rose, systematic sampling emerged as the more accurate technique—though not always.

Table 1: Percentage error calculations for the Forest Tutorial experiment