User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
For the tree sampling program, the three different sampling methodologies chosen were area-based random, systematic, and haphazard sampling. The most efficient methodology was random sampling, which was 20 minutes faster to complete compared to haphazard sampling (12 hours 8 minutes versus 12 hours 28 minutes). Systematic sampling was the most accurate for estimating diversity, with a Shannon-Wiener diversity index value of 1.5, which is the same at the true value. Random sampling was the least accurate, with a value of 1.3
The two most common tree species in the study area are eastern hemlock and sweet birch. Systematic sampling was the most accurate in estimating density of eastern hemlock, with a percentage error of 11.5% compared to random (18.4%), and haphazard (21.5%). Random sampling was the most accurate in estimating density of sweet birch, with a percentage error of 0.08% compared to haphazard (6.4%) and systematic (21.7%).
The two most rare species in the study area are striped maple and white pine. Both random and systematic sampling methodologies failed to record this species, while haphazard was fairly accurate in estimating density with a percentage error of 4.6%. All methodologies were poor at estimating density of white pine. Systematic was the most accurate with a percentage error of 90.5%, while haphazard had a percentage error of 247.6%. Random sampling failed to record this species.
The accuracy of density estimates declined the more rare the tree species were. Twenty-four sample points were likely not a sufficient number as multiple methodologies had large discrepancies between estimated and actual densities of multiple species, while some methodologies failed to record some species at all.
