User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Haphazard or subjective sampling took the least time while sampling because sample selection didn’t took a lot of time because it was chosen randomly compared to other sampling techniques.
Two most common species were Eastern Hemlock, Sweet Birch and two rarest species were Striped Maple, White Pine. In Systematic sampling techniques percentage error for these four species; Eastern Hemlock, Sweet Birch, Striped Maple and White Pine each were: 1.6%, 5.6%, 100%, 100%. In Random Sampling technique, 20.2%, 11.3%, 18.8%, 50%. In haphazard or subjective sampling, 10.9%, 45.2%, 54.3%, 100%. Generally, the results turned out to be more accurate if the species were abundant. Only in abundant species systematic sampling was accurate than other sampling techniques. However in overall range, random sampling technique was overall most accurate compared to two sampling techniques.
Hi
A few comments come to mind from reading your posts:
• I think one thing to consider between your study areas is how much water each area receives. As you noted the hill near the church is not actively managed like the steps near your house. Likely different kinds of grass may require more water this could lead to the grass not being present is certain areas.
• As you have mentioned in your reflection your sampling strategy did not work for the small area of your sites. Changing to systematic sampling will prevent you from using the same sample area twice.
• Your hypothesis is not entirely clear to me. You have selected three types of grass. How are you measuring human induced changes? Perhaps change your hypothesis to be whether the abundance of the three species changes depending on whether the area is actively managed by humans or not.
Regards
Ben