User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
In the virtual forest tutorial, I chose all area-based methods. The fastest sampling time was when using the systematic technique. It took an estimated time to sample of 12 hours and 4 minutes, compared to 12 hours 42 minutes for the randomized, and 12 hours 27 minutes for haphazard.
The most common species was the eastern hemlock. Below are my calculations for percentage error of this species.
Systematic: PE (495.8-469.9)/469.9*100=5.5% Most accurate
Random: PE (680.8-469.9)/469.9*100=44.9%
Haphazard: PE (704.2-469.9)/469.9*100=49.9%
The least common species was the white pine. Below are my calculations for PE of this species.
Systematic: PE (8.3-8.4)/8.4*100=1.2% Most accurate
Random: PE (8.3-8.4)/8.4*100=1.2% Most accurate
Haphazard: PE (4.2-8.4)/8.4*100=50%
It seems that calculating rare species is more accurate, but only when using random or systematic sampling. Haphazard sampling was not accurate in either species. For abundant species, systematic seems to be the only accurate sampling method.
The actual data compared to the estimated data left significant percentage errors in most cases for all species in the middle. Data was most accurate at the top and bottom, or most common and least common. I suggest more than 24 data samples would be needed to eliminate this.
