User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Of the systematic, random, and haphazard sampling techniques used, I noted that each method presents its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, the systematic sampling strategy appeared to be the most straight-forward and least time-consuming method, but only focused on a centralized area of the landscape. The random and haphazard methods presented as very similar (especially because I opted to use no bias in my haphazard site selections) and appeared to be more complex, labour-intensive, and time consuming than the systematic method. However, these methods appeared to give a more complete picture of the landscape as the samples were not limited by any criteria, save for chance (which can unfortunately not work in our favour at the best of times, it seems).
I was under the impression that the sampling times would greatly vary, but was surprised to find that the estimations generated by the virtual program were marginally different. The sampling methods clocked in at the following times:
- Systematic: 12 hours, 36 minutes
- Random: 12 hours, 53 minutes
- Haphazard: 12 hours, 37 minutes
I was unsurprised to find that the systematic method was estimated to be the fastest, but was even more surprised to find how close the haphazard method measured in. Regardless, I feel that the random and haphazard sampling methods could be highly variable due to the randomness of how sites are selected.
When examining accuracy, I had assumed that the random sampling method would be best, which, judging by the data comparisons appeared to have been somewhat correct.
The percentage error for the two most common tree species measured as:
- Eastern Hemlock
- Systematic: 17.4% error
- Random: 19.7% error
- Haphazard: 16.1% error
- Sweet Birch
- Systematic: 38.7% error
- Random: 18.5% error
- Haphazard: 41.9% error
The percentage error of the least common tree species measured as:
- Striped Maple
- Systematic: 60.0% error
- Random: 4.6% error
- Haphazard: 4.6% error
- White Pine
- Systematic: 100% error
- Random: 100% error
- Haphazard: 1.2% error
Overall, the random method appeared to be the most accurate sampling method for measuring the most abundant species, while the haphazard method appeared to be the most accurate when measuring the least abundant species. With all things considered, the random and haphazard sampling methods appear to be the most accurate and holistic methods to use, even though they are more time consuming than the systematic method.
