User: | Open Learning Faculty Member:
Create a blog post describing the results of the three sampling strategies you used in the virtual forest tutorial. Which technique had the fastest estimated sampling time?
Systematic sampling was found to be faster than random or haphazard sampling. Systematic sampling took 12 hours and 35 minutes, random sampling took 13 hours and 50 minutes, and haphazard sampling took 12 hours and 54 minutes.
Compare the percentage error of the different strategies for the two most common and two rarest species.
Systematic Sampling:
Two Most Common Species:
Eastern Hemlock density actual was 469.9 versus 388.0 calculated is a 17.4% difference.
Sweet Birch density actual was 117.5 versus 148.0 calculated is a 20.6% difference.
Two Rarest Species:
Striped Maple density actual was 17.5 versus 40.0 calculated is a 56.2% difference.
White Pine density actual was 8.4 versus 20.0 calculated is a 58% difference.
Random Sampling:
Two Most Common Species:
Eastern Hemlock density actual was 469.9 versus 496.2 calculated is a 5.3% difference.
Sweet Birch density actual was 117.5 versus 107.7 calculated is an 8.3% difference.
To Rarest Species:
Striped Maple density actual was 17.5 versus 7.7 calculated is a 56% difference.
White Pine density actual was 8.4 versus 3.8 calculated is a 54.8% difference.
Haphazard Sampling:
Two Most Common Species:
Eastern Hemlock density actual was 469.9 versus 484.0 calculated is a 2.9% difference.
Sweet Birch density actual was 117.5 versus 140.0 calculated is a 16.1% difference.
Two Rarest Species:
Striped Maple density actual was 17.5 versus 32.0 calculated is a 41.7% difference.
White Pine density actual was 8.4 versus 8.0 calculated is a 4.8% difference.
Did the accuracy change with species abundance?
Both systematic and random sampling had greater accuracy with species abundance. However, haphazard sampling resulted in both the most common and rarest species having greater accuracy.
Was one sampling strategy more accurate than another?
Random sampling can be more accurate than systematic due to periodic ordering. However, haphazard had greater accuracy, which may be due to increased homogenous communities, leading to a greater community representation.
One was faster, but were they that different? Your description of which one is more accurate is a bit confusing and it would be a bit clearer if you only presented the % error for comparison among the different strategies.