User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
After completing the virtual forest sampling tutorial, the data was as follows:
Sampling Time (hr:min): The fastest sampling methods was the systematic sampling methods at 12hrs 36mins estimated.
Systematic = (12:36)
Randomized = (13:12)
Haphazard = (13:02)
Percentage Error of density of species:
Eastern Hemlock – Systematic (1.30%) Randomized (6.41%) Haphazard (37.1%)
Red Maple – Systematic (-12.5%) Randomized (-49.5%) Haphazard (27.8%)
White Pine – Systematic (42.9%) Randomized (-4.76%) Haphazard (-4.76%)
Striped Maple – Systematic (37.1%) Randomized (82.9%) Haphazard (37.1%)
Sample Calculation: Eastern Hemlock (systematic) = (estimated (476.0) – actual (469.9)) / actual (469.9) x 100 = 1.30%
Populations with greater numbers of individuals had much more accurate estimations than the rare species.
The systematic methods was the quickest as well as the most accurate sampling method. Surprisingly the randomized methods seemed substantially less accurate than the haphazard method. I believe it may be limited to this one trial however. I would expect the haphazard to be the least accurate because of bias whether intentional or subconscious.
