The three sampling strategies I used in the virtual forest tutorial in the Mohn Hill Area were Random sampling, Haphazard sampling and Systematic sampling. When taking 25 samples on each strategy the fastest estimated time was Systematic sampling at 12 hours and 37 minutes followed by Haphazard sampling at 13 hours and 13 minutes followed by Random samples at 14 hours and 18 minutes.
| Species | Systematic Sampling Percent Error (%) | Random Sampling Percent Error (%) | Haphazard Sampling Percent Error (%) |
| Red Maple (Common) | 4.87% | 0.00% | 9.98% |
| White Oak (Common) | 35.57% | 20.40% | 51.68% |
| Black tupelo (Rare) | 0.007% | 77.46% | 1.41% |
| White Pine (Rare) | 0.018% | 42.18% | 6.25% |
I would assume that when increasing abundance and sample size that it would increase the accuracy. Overall the most accurate sampling strategy seemed to be the Systematic Sampling system as the overall percent error was lower than the other strategies. However with the being said its important to note that for Random sampling there was a 0% error in the Red Maple species.
Good post, I’d say it seems like you need more samples for accuracy and perhaps compare the strategies and illustrates the challenges of studying rare species!