User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
I used the distance-based methods in the virtual forest tutorial. Systematic sampling was the fastest, taking 4 hours and 15 minutes, random sampling took 4 hours and 38 minutes and haphazard was the slowest at 4 hours and 44 minutes.
Random sampling had the most accuracy in regards to the two most common tree species and one of the rarer species. Systematic sampling was the most accurate in regards to the rarest species (white pine). The haphazard sampling method was not accurate in regards to both abundant and scarce species.
The systematic sampling technique was more accurate with scarce species than common species and this could be due to the nature of distant-based sampling along one direction. The systematic sampling method may have not been the most accurate in every species sampled but it did have the most accurate average overall and seems to be a more reliable method of sampling.
| Sampling Technique | % Error Eastern Hemlock (common) | % Error Sweet Birch (common) | % White Pine (rare) | % Striped Maple (rare) |
| Systematic | 9.9% | 64.0% | 1.2% | 3.4% |
| Random | 3.1% | 47.4% | 100.0% | 0.5% |
| Haphazard | 138.0% | 142.9% | 142.0% | 16.5% |
