In this study, I had utilized the distance based method for all three sampling techniques. While systematic sampling was the efficient in time, taking 4 hours and 5 minutes, it was the second most accurate according to its percentage errors calculated in both common and rare tree species. I was surprised to see that haphazard sampling took the second longest with 4 hours and 25 minutes spent, although it had the worst percentage errors throughout the experiment. It has averaged 100.0% error in both the common and rare tree species. Random sampling was the slowest with 4 hours and 36 minutes spent, but it had the most accurate results in both common and rare tree species.
Systematic Random Haphazard
Time Spent 4 hr, 5 min 4 hr, 36 min 4 hr, 25 min
Common Species Average % Error 13.8% 10.4% 100.0%
Rare Species Average % Error 80.3% 70.9% 100.0%
Both systematic and random sampling percentage errors significantly increased when switching from common to rare tree species. I do not believe that 24 was a sufficient number to sample, especially for the rare species, as the percentage errors were quite high in all techniques. There were not enough sample points to accurately estimate the abundance of these species according to the percentages errors calculated, which would lead to inaccurate study results. As seen in the systematic and haphazard sampling, they both showed 100.0% error when measuring the White Pine abundance. Neither method was suitable for measuring White Pine (rare species) abundance in this scenario, requiring a larger number of sample points, to improve accuracy and reliability. This result emphasizes the importance of carefully planning and evaluating sampling techniques to ensure they align with the characteristics of the population being studied. Increasing the number of sample points would reduce the percentage error for both common and rare species, resulting in a more accurate study, especially when errors are around 10% or less.
Systematic Random Haphazard
Eastern Hemlock -22.2% 11.0% 100.0%
Red Maple -5.3% 9.7% 100.0%
Striped Maple 60.6% 100.0% -100.0%
White Pine 100.0% 41.7% 100.0%
I’m surprised Haphazard had 100% error each time, that doesn’t usually happen. Usually the sample times are longer as well. Often haphazard sampling can have lower error for rare species though all three are usually high for rare species.