All three techniques had small differences in the time spent to do sampling, but haphazard sampling was the most efficient one with 12 hours and 27 minutes. Random sampling took the longest with 12 hours and 53 minutes and the systemic sampling along the topographic gradient took extra 8 minutes than haphazard sampling (taking 12 hours and 35 minutes).
I was thinking the systematic would be the quickest because this sampling method is time efficient, but it turned out to be the longest. It is interesting to watch how haphazard sampling was the fastest even though it has long tradition of subjective sampling. I was expecting the random sampling to take long because even physically it would take us some time to move from one place to another when units are chosen randomly.
| Species in Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area | Actual density | Measured density for systematic sampling | % Error in systematic sampling | Measured density for random sampling | % Error in random sampling | Measured density for haphazard sampling | % Error in haphazard sampling |
| Eastern Hemlock | 469.9 | 564.0 | 20.02 | 300.00 | 36.2 | 550.0 | 17.0 |
| Sweet Birch | 117.5 | 52.0 | 55.7 | 120.8 | 2.80 | 83.3 | 29.1 |
| Yellow Birch | 108.9 | 68.0 | 37.6 | 62.5 | 42.6 | 162.5 | 49.2 |
| Chestnut Oak | 87.5 | 84.0 | 4.0 | 150.0 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 14.3 |
| Red Maple | 118.9 | 84.0 | 29.3 | 91.7 | 22.9 | 104.2 | 12.4 |
| Striped Maple | 17.5 | 16.0 | 8.6 | 29.2 | 66.9 | 12.5 | 28.6 |
| White Pine | 8.4 | 12.0 | 42.9 | 12.5 | 50.6 | 12.5 | 50.6 |
The most common species in Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area when compared their actual densities were Eastern Hemlock with 20.02%, 36.2% and 17.0% percentage error and Red Maple with 29.3%, 22.9% and 12.4% percentage error in systemic sampling, random sampling, and haphazard sampling respectively.
The rare species in Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area were Striped Maple with 8.6%, 66.9% and 28.6% percentage error and White Pine with 42.9%, 50.6% and 50.6% percentage error in systemic sampling, random sampling, and haphazard sampling respectively.
For common species Haphazard sampling was most accurate with least percentage error for Eastern Hemlock (17%) and Red Maple (12.4%).
For rare species, it turns out that systematic sampling was the most accurate with least percentage error for Striped Maple (8.6%) and White Pine (42.9%).
While comparing the accuracy for rare species, it gave the impression that the accuracy for them declined overall.
The sample size (24) was not enough to sample all species, especially in haphazard sampling. If the sample size was more, maybe random sampling and haphazard would give us more species all over the sample area.