User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
For the virtual sampling tutorial, I chose to use area-based sampling for the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area. Results are shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Virtual Sampling Results for
As shown in the results table, all three sampling methods took over 12 hours to complete, with the random method being the longest at 13 hours and 13 minutes. The two most common species encountered were Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch, while the two least encountered (rare) species were Striped Maple and White Pine. Random sampling had the lowest percent error for the Eastern Hemlock, while systematic had the lowest for Sweet Birch. Systematic had a 100% percent error for the two rarest species, Striped Maple and White Pine. Haphazard had the lowest percent error for Striped Maple, while random had the lowest for White Pine, with haphazard only being slightly higher. Systemic generally improved greatly in percent error as species abundance increased. This was also generally true for random sampling as well. Haphazard did not show a consistent trend either way in terms of percent error with a change in species abundance as it greatly improved for the second rarest species but got much worse for the rarest species. For abundant species, I would say that systematic is likely to be the most accurate while haphazard would be the least accurate. For the rare species, systematic is likely to be the least accurate. With 24 sample points, haphazard was able to be quite accurate for Striped Maple but much less accurate for White Pine. This is likely a chance event and I would expect if this was repeated the percent error would be higher for Striped Maple. Likewise, systematic was not very accurate in sampling both rare species in which case increasing the number of sample points would likely improve the degree of accuracy.
