Blog Post 4 – Sampling Strategies

Using the area-based method I got the following results:

Haphazard Sampling:

Time spent: 12h 36m

Sampling error common species: 23.2% (Eastern Hemlock)

Sampling error rare species: 147.6% (White Pine)

Random Sampling:

Time spent: 12h 34m

Sampling error common species: 10.0% (Eastern Hemlock)

Sampling error rare species: 147.6% (White Pine)

Systematic Sampling:

Time spent: 12h 11m

Sampling error common species: 6.9% (Eastern Hemlock)

Sampling error rare species: 98.8% (White Pine)

All these methods are very close in regard to time, so there is no clear preference here. Looking at the sampling errors we can see that the errors are different from method to method, indicating that our sample size of just 24 areas might be too small. This is also supported by the very large sampling error for rare species, which would become smaller with a larger sample size. However, given the low absolute amount of rare speciesĀ of trees, even a large sample error does not lead to a huge absolute error in the number of trees or tree density overall. So for an overall outlook, the sample size might be big enough, just when looking at single species the error becomes a detrimental factor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *