| Species | Systematic Sampling Percent Error (%) | Random Sampling Percent Error (%) | Haphazard Sampling Percent Error (%) |
| Eastern Hemlock (common) | -26.79% | -13.17% | -14.02% |
| Sweet Birch (common) | 49.79% | -8.09% | -8.09% |
| Striped Maple (rare) | -31.43% | -100.00% | -54.29% |
| White Pine (rare) | -4.76% | -52.38% | 138.10% |
| Estimated time to sample | 12 hours, 35 minutes | 13 hours, 9 minutes | 13 hours, 0 minutes |
Among the three strategies, area systematic sampling was the fastest, taking 12 hours and 35 minutes. Area haphazard sampling followed closely at 13 hours, while area random sampling took the longest at 13 hours and 9 minutes.
The accuracy of each strategy varied with species abundance:
Common Species: For Eastern Hemlock, area random sampling had the least error (-13.17%), while area systematic sampling showed a larger negative error (-26.79%). Sweet Birch also had significant overestimation with area systematic sampling (49.79%).
Rare Species: For rare species, area random sampling completely missed the Striped Maple (-100% error), whereas area systematic sampling reported a moderate error (-31.43%). Area haphazard sampling for White Pine produced an unusually high positive error (138.10%), which could indicate a few lucky encounters with this rare species.
Overall, random sampling proved to be more accurate for common species, while systematic sampling was more reliable for estimating the abundance of rare species.
Great! very similar times even though some slight differences!