User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
The first sampling technique I explored was area/haphazard. I sampled 27 quadrats, which was estimated to take 14 hours and 30 minutes. The percent error for the two most common species were 11.0% and 14.2% respectively. The two most rare species had percent errors of 62.6% and 79.7%. Accuracy changed drastically when abundance decreased and sample time is not optimal, therefore, this strategy is not the best choice for the Mohn Mills community.
The second method I tested was area/random. The most abundant species had percent errors of 9.2% and 14.5% while the two least abundant were 13.3% and 47.9%. I believe that accuracy only changed drastically due to an outlier. Otherwise, they might be very similar. Estimated sampling time for this method, also 27 quadrats, was 14 hours and 16 minutes. This is very similar to the first method’s sampling time.
The third method I looked at was distance/haphazard. The sampling time for 27 quadrats was only 5 hours and 15 minutes, making it much more reasonable than the area strategies. Percent error for the most common species was 13.2% and 13.2%, while the two rarest were 8.57% and 26.9%. Although the last percent error was higher than the others, these values are the most consistent out of all three sampling techniques. Along with the reasonable sampling time, this makes the distance/haphazard method the best choice for this community.
