Experiment Results 2

Results:

For the 1st transect, 5 quadrats were recorded, yielding 20.56% cover for species A and B, collectively named as the boulders and branching corals, respectively. Species C or the seaweed group was not counted in the percent cover since the objective to know the coverage of the corals in the reef. In the 1st transect, species A gave a relative density of 1.27 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.32, while species B gave a relative density of 1.37 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.34.

The 2nd transect also recorded 5 quadrats, yielding 19.44% cover for species A and B. Species A gave a relative density of 2.15 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.54. Species B gave a relative density of 2.03 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.51.

The 3rd transect only recorded 2 quadrats, yielding only 8.33% cover for species A and B. Species A gave a relative density of 0.58 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.14. Species B gave a relative density of 0.60 per 0.25m2 and relative frequency of 0.15.

The 3 transects averaged an overall of 16.11% cover for species A and B and gave a standard deviation of 6.76. Based on the results gathered from random sampling of 0.25m2 quadrat, it shows that random sampling is not accurate nor is it precise. In the activity, we were tasked to randomly select different areas along several transects and record the different species that are located in those areas. Some of the areas include areas which have overlapped with the other areas. This produced incomplete results as well as repetitions of some species in the count, causing inaccuracy and imprecision in determining the number of species in the reef, as shown in the graph. Random sampling, by definition of its purpose, is used to determine uniform landscapes (“Ecological Sampling,” n.d.), which contradicts with our experiment to assess the different species found in a makeshift reef using tarpaulin images of a Batangas reef.

References:

Ecological sampling....