After using the virtual forest sampling I decided to use the distance-based method for the three sampling techniques (Haphazard, Random and Systemic) in the Mohn Mill community. The technique with the fastest estimated sampling time was the systemic technique which was only 5 minutes faster than the randomized.
The two most common species collected were the Red Maple and White Oak whereas the two most rare were Black Cherry and Striped Maple. Here are the percentage errors for the respective species:
Percentage Errors for Two Most Common Species:
| Species | Systematic (%) | Random (%) | Haphazard (%) |
| Red Maple | 5.62% | -25.34% | -14.94% |
| White Oak | 114.63% | 7.91% | 21.34% |
Percentage Errors for Two Rarest Species:
| Species | Systematic (%) | Random (%) | Haphazard (%) |
| Black Cherry | -100.00% | 638.97% | -100.00% |
| Striped Maple | -100.00% | 1,240.00% | -100.00% |
| An average error by technique | 80.06% | 478.06% | 59.07% |
With the results, the accuracy did change with the abundance of species. When looking at the rare species it had the largest percentage error by technique, this is most likely due to these species being less abundant causing a lesser likelihood of being sampled. For the two most common species with a higher abundance, the percentage error value was much closer to the true number. In terms of accuracy, it was neck and neck between random and haphazard for the common species but due to the rare species it caused a shift towards haphazard being the most accurate in terms of an average percentage error. However since random sampling was the only technique which found the rare species there could be an argument that this is the most accurate has it found the most species in comparison to the other sampling methods.