User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
According to my digital field experiments in the synthesized Snyder-Middleswarth State Park Natural Area, the systematic sampling method was the most time-efficient (12:o6, hh:mm), followed by haphazard (12:23) and random (12:48) methods.
The percentage errors for estimates of the most common and most rare species are shown in the table below:
| Percent Error of Sampling Methods |
Species | Systematic | Random | Haphazard |
| Most Common Species | Eastern Hemlock |
37% |
36% |
3% |
| Sweet Birch |
43% |
22% |
26% |
|
| Least Common Species | Striped Maple |
100% |
100% |
43% |
| White Pine |
100% |
100% |
49% |
As the data suggest, accuracy of estimates were poorer when the species was more rare. Estimates are more accurate when the species in question occur frequently relative to other species.
Consistently, haphazard sampling produced the sample that most closely reflected true species abundance.
