User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
My results for the forest community Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area are as follows:
My fastest estimated sampling time between all three strategies was area haphazard sampling at 13 hours, following with random sampling at 13 hours and 19 minutes, and longest estimated time with systemic sampling at 15 hours and 7 minutes.
Overall, the sampling strategy with the most accuracy for me was the area haphazard which really surprised me. Systemic sampling had the worst overall error percentage while the random sampling was in the middle. For the two most common species the most accurate to the least accurate sampling strategies was (1) random, (2) haphazard, (3) systemic. For the two rarest species we have, from most accurate to least, (1) haphazard, (2) random (3) systemic.
The accuracy for all strategies were best with common species and higher margins of error for the rarest species. Below are the statistics for the percentage error with each strategy.
Area Haphazard (most common to least common)
EASHEM: 16%
SWEBIR: 23%
STRMAP: 77%
WHIPIN: 90%
Area systematic
EASHEM: 48%
SWEBIR: 72%
STRMAP: 100%
WHIPIN: 100%
Area random
EASHEM: 9%
SWEBIR: 25%
STRMAP: 78%
WHIPIN: 100%
Did the results surprise you? Did the results for rare species make sense?
Remember to tag / categorize your posts so I can find them!