Hello! I selected the Synder-Middleswarth Natural Area for this exercise. Here are the results:
Exercise 3 with the haphazard sampling had the fastest estimated sampling time of 2 hours, 39 minutes. Exercise 1 systematic and 2 random sampling had estimates of over 12 hours.
I have calculated the percentage error for methods 1-3, but for the haphazard method there were no striped maple or white pine found. Haphazard sampling had the greatest error for both the two most common and two rarest species.
For the two most common species, in the order of the lowest percentage error to the highest would be systematic, random, and haphazard sampling.
For the two rarest species, in the order of the lowest percentage error to the highest would be random, systematic, and haphazard sampling.
Yes, the accuracy of the methods was different for various abundances. In all methods, the most common species with the highest abundance had the lowest percentage error and the rarest species with the lowest abundance had the highest percentage error.
The random and systematic sampling had comparable percentage errors that were relatively low. However, the haphazard method had significantly higher percentage errors than either the random and systematic sampling.
some good comments here!