In an online course recently held at the Snyder-Middleswarth Natural Area, we examined several sample procedures to ascertain their accuracy and usefulness. Identifying the best technique for estimating the distribution of various tree species within a specified area was the task at hand. To estimate the distribution of tree species, I used three sample techniques: random, systematic, and accidental sampling. The most effective method was systematic sampling, which finished the assignment in just 11 hours and 04 minutes. Haphazard sampling covered 35 places in 11 hours and 59 minutes, while random sampling covered 35 locations in 12 hours and 22 minutes. This comparison highlights the temporal efficacy of systematic sampling in ecological studies. Eastern hemlock and red maple were discovered to be the most common species in the area, whereas white pine and striped maple were found to be unusual.
This is the % error between different strategies:
| Species | Haphazard sampling | Random Sampling | Systematic |
| East Hemlock | 1.5% | 2.4% | 1.9% |
| Red Maple | 2.2% | 1.7% | 0.8% |
| Striped Maple | 2.0% | 8.5% | 1.6% |
| Wine Pine | 0.5% | 5.6% | 3.9% |
Systematic sampling is recommended for its speed and reliability to minimize errors and maximize sampling accuracy, especially when working with rare species. For common species, results from haphazard sampling can be more accurate. The sample size must be increased, and sampling locations must be changed, to lower errors and improve data reliability.