In total, 7 different tree species (Eastern Hemlock, Sweet Birch, Yellow Birch, Chestnut Oak, Red Maple, Striped Maple, and White Pine) were identified using three different sampling techniques (systematic distance, random distance, and haphazard distance). All 7 species were found when using haphazard sampling, but Striped Maple and White Pine were not found using systematic or random. Systematic was the fastest method at 4 hours and 16 minutes followed by haphazard (4 hours, 29 minutes) and random (4 hours, 39 minutes).
Eastern Hemlock (the most common species) had a percent error of 40.1%, 22%, and 16.4% for systematic, random, and haphazard sampling respectively. Sweet birch (second most common) had percent errors of 36.1%, 51.1%, 24%. Striped Maple (second rarest) was 100%, 100%, and 2.3%, and White pine (rarest) was 100%, 100%, 6% as none were identified using systematic or random sampling. There was a rather large fluctuation in accuracy between both the rare and common species for all sampling methods. Although, I could imagine that if more samples were collected, we would see higher accuracy in species with higher abundance because they are more dominant species and therefore we are more likely to come across them while sampling. Even though it did fluctuate, we did see accuracy increase for common species using systematic or random sampling. Overall, haphazard seemed to be the most accurate sampling method with its highest percent error being only 24%, and it was the only sampling method where we identified the two rarest species. There wasn’t too much of a difference between systematic and random in terms of accuracy. Systematic was more accurate for Sweet Birch and random was more accurate for Eastern Hemlock.