For the virtual sampling activity I used area systematic (12h36m), area random (14h1m), and area haphazard (12h28m). Haphazard was the fastest and the most accurate for the rarest species, but not the most common species. The percentage error for the two most common species was lowest for the area random (10% and 7%). The two most uncommon species had a percentage error of 6% and 100% for area random. As the species abundance goes up the accuracy also went up. Random sampling appears to be most accurate (average of 15% error) but also took the longest. Area systematic had an average error of 18% but took 2 hours less time. Area systematic appears to be the “best bang for your buck”.