After running the three types of tests the results said that subjective sampling would take the longest amount of time at 12 hours and 44 minutes, although this is only two minutes longer than the random sampling estimated time of 12 hours and 42 minutes. This makes systematic sampling the quickest at 12 hours and 32 minutes.
The most accurate representation of the white pine (the rarest species) was the subjective sampling method with a percentage error of 1% when looking at the relative density. The average percent error between the rarest two species for subjective sampling was 200%, 59.6% for random sampling and 116% for systematic sampling. However, systematic sampling was more accurate for the most common species (the eastern hemlock) with a percent error of 0.2%. This is consistent for the top three most common species when looking at systematic sampling with an average percent error of 0.37% compared with 40% with subjective sampling and 41.9% with random sampling. As such, accuracy did not stay the same when comparing percent error between common and rare species. Although, with a sample size larger than 24, the percent errors will decline but when comparing the time required and effect on the species representation within the data this may not be worth it. Twenty-four quadrants was enough to identify and sample each species even if it did not paint an entirely accurate picture of the species’ densities.
When comparing the pros and cons of the three methods of sampling, systematic sampling seems to be the most time effective and accurate overall, even if it is hard to accurately represent the rare species with any of the strategies.