Sampling strategies used: for this study I focused on area-based methods with three distinct sampling strategies.
- haphazard = samples were placed arbitrarily in locations selected without any systematic approach.
- random sampling = sampling locations were determined by a random number of generator, eliminating personal bias in site selection.
- systematic sampling along a topographic gradient = samples were collected at regular intervals along a topographic gradient, ensuring coverage of varying environmental conditions.
Results:
Among three strategies, the systematic sampling method was the fastest which only required 12 hours and 20 minutes to complete. Haphazard sampling took 13 hours and random sampling took 13 hours and 14 minutes.
Percentage error for each strategy compared for two common species and two rare species:
| Species | Systematic sampling percent error | Random sampling percent error | Haphazard sampling percent error |
| Black-capped chickadee (common) | -20.45% | -11.89% | -13.22% |
| White-breasted Nuthatch (common) | 33.12% | -6.45% | -8.73% |
| Golden-crowned Kinglet (rare) | -35.78% | -100.00% | -40.25% |
| Red-breasted Nuthatch (rare) | -7.89% | -49.11% | 125.60% |
Observations:
Common species:
- black-capped chickadee’s random sampling provided the most accurate method for estimating abundance, wth an error of only -11.89%, whereas for white-breasted nuthatch it only gave an error of -6.45%.
Rare species:
- for rare species, systematic sampling was the most reliable, showing moderate error of -35.78% for golden-crown kinglet and -7.89% for red-breasted nuthatch.
overall based on the results, random sampling is the best strategy for accurately estimating the abundance of common species and for rare species, the best strategy is systematic sampling.