User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
For the virtual forest tutorial, I used the area-based model for my systematic, randomized, and haphazard sampling of vegetation. The most efficient method of sampling for my results was systemic sampling. On common species, it had a percentage error of 3.71% versus 18.75% for random and 9.48% for haphazard sampling. The technique which required the least amount of time was the random method. However, all sampling techniques had very similar sampling times with random being 12hrs 20mins, systemic was 12hrs 37mins and haphazard was 12hrs 25mins. The percent error for the rarest species was best using the haphazard sampling technique. It seems that the systematic approach is more useful for common species as it didn’t take up many rare species, and the haphazard sampling was more accurate for the rarer species.
You only have error for one rare and one common species and you don’t say what they are. Also, you say systematic is more efficient and random took less time?