User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Virtual Forest Tutorial: Snyder- Middleswarth Natural Area.
| Results of Sampling Technique Tutorial | |||||||
| Sampling Technique | Systematic | Random | Haphazard | ||||
| Common Species | Actual Density (T) | Estimated Density (E) | Percentage Error % | Estimated Density (E) | Percentage Error % | Estimated Density (E) | Percentage Error % |
| Eastern Hemlock | 469.9 | 460 | 2 | 304.2 | 35 | 375 | 20 |
| Sweet Birch | 117.5 | 124 | 6 | 100 | 15 | 137.5 | 17 |
| Yellow Birch | 108.9 | 68 | 38 | 129.2 | 19 | 95.8 | 12 |
| Chestnut Oak | 87.5 | 100 | 14 | 108.3 | 24 | 75 | 14 |
| Red Maple | 118.9 | 124 | 4 | 179.2 | 51 | 91.7 | 23 |
| Rare Species | |||||||
| Striped Maple | 17.5 | 16 | 9 | 0 | 100 | 20.8 | 19 |
| White Pine | 8.4 | 0 | 100 | 20.8 | 148 | 8.3 | 1 |
Time Spent Sampling:
Of the three sampling strategies, systematic, random, and haphazard, they were all very similar in the amount of time spent sampling, with haphazard being slower than the other two by 2 minutes.
Accuracy of each Method of Sampling:
The most accurate sampling method for the more common tree species was the systematic sampling method. The most accurate sampling method for the rare species, Striped Maple and White Pine was the haphazard method. The accuracy for the systematic and random method declined for the rare species compared to common, due to the fact that they missed one rare species all together each. Whereas the haphazard method stayed about the same for both common and rare species. Perhaps with more sample points and another location for systematic would have been more accurate.
your summary is well written, concise and you hit all the key points. Your table does not quite fit in the blog area.