I used random, systematic, and haphazard sampling as mh three sample techniques in the virtual forest tutorial. At 13 hours and 16 minutes, the systematic sampling method—which was carried out along a topographic gradient—exhibited the quickest estimated sampling time. However, it took a total of 16 hours and 12 minutes for haphazard sampling, which turned out to be the most time-consuming. An analysis of the percentage error for the two rarest species, Yellow Birch and Red Maple, in addition to the two most common, Eastern Hemlocks and Sweet Birch, revealed some intriguing patterns. With systematic or random sampling, the error rate for Eastern Hemlocks was 10.9%, while the error rate for haphazard sampling was 13.5%. While systematic or random sampling revealed a 21.1% error, haphazard sampling for Sweet Birch produced an 18.5% error. For the less common species, the percentage error was 0% for haphazard sampling and 12.5% for systematic sampling for Red Maple, and 0.5% for haphazard sampling and 17.5% for systematic sampling for Yellow Birch. When working with rarer species, the accuracy somewhat decreased. Yellow birch and red maple, for example, were comparatively rare in haphazard sampling, whereas Yellow Birch numbers were higher in systematic or random sampling. It was clear overall that the accuracy of the sampling techniques decreased dramatically when the species was less common. The accuracy rose, however, when species abundance increased, highlighting the requirement for a greater discrepancy between estimated and actual samples in order to achieve higher accuracy. In conclusion, when compared to random sampling, systematic sampling appeared to be more accurate in terms of overall accuracy.