| Species | Systematic Sampling Percent Error (%) | Random Sampling Percent Error (%) | Haphazard Sampling Percent Error (%) |
| Eastern Hemlock (common) | 1.2 | 16.6 | 20.6 |
| Sweet Birch (common) | 8.9 | 4.2 | 0.68 |
| Striped Maple (rare) | 19.2 | 76.0 | 4.5 |
| White Pine (rare) | 4.7 | 50.0 | 1.1 |
| Total Sampling Time: | 12 hours, 37 minutes | 12 hours, 43 minutes | 12 hours, 31 minutes |
All three sampling strategies had similar total sampling times, with haphazard sampling being the quickest at 12 hours and 31 minutes. Systematic sampling had the lowest average percent error for common species like Eastern Hemlock and Sweet Birch, while both random and haphazard sampling had similar average percent errors for these species. Random sampling had a very high percent error for rare species, while haphazard sampling had the lowest percent error for rare species. Given this, haphazard sampling might be the best choice for sampling rare species. However, it may also be less reliable, as shown by the wide margin in percent error in common species; 20.6% for Eastern Hemlock compared to just 0.68% for Sweet Birch.
Overall, systematic sampling appears to be a better option than random sampling, as random sampling showed higher average percent errors for both common and rare species. Additionally, while haphazard sampling can be effective for some species, it may be somewhat unreliable due to the variability in percent error.
I’m surprised the % error for your rare species isn’t higher!