Blog Post 4 – 03-02-20
Out of the three sampling techniques, Random Sampling was the most efficient in terms of time with the sampling taking a time of 12 hours and 4 minutes. Haphazard Sampling was the second most efficient technique in terms of time with the sampling taking 12 hours and 32 minutes and Systematic Sampling was the least efficient in terms of time with the sampling taking 12 hours and 44 minutes to complete. For the Eastern Hemlock Systematic data, the percent error for the density was 9.959% while for the Random data the percent error was 18.813% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 6.895%. For the Sweet Birch Systematic data, the percent error for the density was 18.468% while for the Random data set, the percent error was 4.255% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 24.085%. For the Yellow Birch Systematic data, the percent error for the density was 27.273% while for the Random data the percent error was 19.651% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 31.129%. For the Chestnut Oak Systematic data, the percent error for density was 9.456% while for the Random data the percent error was 23.771% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 19.086%. For the Red Maple Systematic data, the percent error for density was 8.915% while for the Random data the percent error was 36.922% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 19.176%. For the Striped Maple Systematic data, the percent error for density was 28.571% while for the Random data the percent error was 76.0% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 114.285%. For the White Pine Systematic data, the percent error for density was 10.0% while for the Random data the percent error was 10.0% and for the Haphazard data the percent error was 50.0%. Based off of these calculated values, the most accurate sampling strategy for common species (the most common being the Eastern Hemlock) was Haphazard sampling, followed by Systematic sampling. In comparing the two most common species, Haphazard sampling an Systematic sampling were very close in terms of accuracy, while Random sampling was not close. Based off of the aforementioned calculated values, the most accurate sampling strategy for rare species (the most rare being the White Pine) was very clearly Systematic sampling. The accuracy generally declined for rare species, especially in the Haphazard sampling data. This suggested that as species abundance lowered, accuracy in density measurements also lowered. Having 24 sample points perhaps was not sufficient to measure the number of species in the area. Perhaps 24 sample points was enough to provide an accurate measure of the common trees species, but it was not enough to provide an accurate measure for the number of rare tree species in the area; however, 24 sample points appeared to be enough to capture the relative abundance of each of the tree species in the area.