Blog 4 – Forest Tutorial

User:  | Open Learning Faculty Member: 


I used the distance based method. The systematic sampling technique took the least amount of time, at 4 hrs, 5 mins, followed by haphazard at 4 hrs, 26 mins, and finally random which took 4 hrs, and 40 mins. Eastern hemlock and yellow birch were the two most common trees for each sampling technique. The sampling error was lowest for random (-1.7%, 29.8%) which would make it the most accurate, followed by haphazard (-6.5%, 31.7%) and systematic which had the highest error (-22.2%, 55%).

Striped maple and white pine were the two least common species for each sampling technique. Again, random (11.9%, -100%) was the most accurate, however systematic (60.6%, 123.8%) was more accurate than haphazard (118.3%, 124.7%) for the least common species. In general, the accuracy declined for rare species.

The percent error calculations are all quite large aside from the ones obtained in random sampling, and I believe this is due to the fact that 24 is too small a sample size. Generally as your sample size increases, your margins of error decrease (Statsoft, 2018) so I think increasing the sample size would yield more accurate results.

Systematic Sample time: 4 hrs, 5 mins
Actual Density Data Density % Error
Common Eastern Hemlock 469.9 365.8 -22.2%
Yellow Birch 108.9 168.8 55%
Rare Striped Maple 17.5 28.1 60.6%
White Pine 8.4 18.8 123.8%
Random Sample time: 4 hrs, 40 mins
Common Eastern Hemlock 469.9 461.8 -1.7%
Yellow Birch 108.9 141.4 29.8%
Rare White Pine 8.4 9.4 11.9%
Striped Maple 17.5 0 -100%
Haphazard Sample time: 4 hrs, 26 mins
Common Eastern Hemlock 469.9 439.7 -6.5%
Yellow Birch 108.9 143.4 31.7%
Rare Striped Maple 17.5  38.2 118.3%
White Pine 8.4 19.1 127.4%

 

StatSoft. (2018). Designing and Experiment – Power Analysis. Retrieved February 2, 2018 from: http://www.statsoft.com/Textbook/Power-Analysis#power_doe3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *