User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Systematic sampling had the fastest sampling time with 12 hours and 6 minutes. This makes sense as the plots used are fairly close together, reducing travel time. Both random sampling and haphazard sampling had estimated sample times around 13 hours, which accounts for their increased distance between plots.
As a species becomes more abundant, the accuracy of the results increases. The average percent error for the most abundant and second most abundant was 11% and 23% respectively. In contrast, the average percent error for the least abundant and the second least abundant was 46% and 113% respectively. This may be because the less abundant species are grouped together so it is much more likely for a plot to have none of that species or a much larger density of that species than its overall density. More abundant species may be more evenly dispersed throughout the study area, resulting in a more accurate representation of them in each plot.
In this scenario, random sampling was the most accurate with an average of 35%. It was also the most consistent in its results without a single result that was extremely high or low. Haphazard sampling got very small percent errors for three of the species, which can not be attributed to anything but luck, since I chose each plot using the “subjectively without preconceived bias” method. The transect used for the systematic sampling did not cross any areas where the two least abundant species were present, which accounts for its high percent errors for those species.
