My virtual sampling took place in the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area using area-based methods. I used three strategies to get my data: systematic sampling, random sampling, and haphazard sampling. The fastest technique was systematic sampling with an estimated time to sample of 12 hours and 36 minutes. The random sampling and haphazard sampling had estimated times to sample relatively close to this at 12 hours 43 minutes and 13 hours 3 minutes, respectively.
Based on percent density, the most common species were Eastern Hemlock And Red Maple, while the rarest species were Striped Maple and White Pine. The error percentages for these species with the three sampling techniques are shown in the table below.
| Systematic Sampling | Random Sampling | Haphazard Sampling | |
| Eastern Hemlock | 16.8% | 9.4% | 22.8% |
| Red Maple | 24.5% | 8.9% | 2.4% |
| Striped Maple | 100% | 76% | 82.9% |
| White Pine | 100% | 1.2% | 4.8% |
Abundance definitely played a role in the accuracy of sampling strategies as both Striped Male and White Pine have far higher average error percentages compared to Eastern Hemlock and Red Maple. This observation has some outliers, as some of the lowest error percentages are found in the White Pine sampling.
The most accurate method in this scenario appears to be the random sampling method, which consistently had the lowest error percentage of all three methods. It is only slightly slower than the systematic sampling method. All evidence considered, this particular data set shows random sampling to be the best option in this scenario.