Post 4 Sampling Strategies

When comparing the results, haphazard sampling was the most time-efficient, requiring 12 hours and 59 minutes, systematic sampling was close at 12 hours and 35 minutes. Random took the longest, at 13 hours and 20 minutes. Sampling accuracy for common species like Eastern Hemlock and Red Maple, Haphazard sampling provided the most accurate density estimates, with the lowest percentage error of 0.45% for Eastern Hemlock and 0.9% for Red Maple. For rare species like Striped Maple and White Pine, systematic sampling had the most accurate results.  The accuracy for rare species declined compared to common species and was poor for all samples. None of the methods reliably showed rare species densities. Random samples  recorded a 100% error for some rare species showing how inaccurate the results could be. With 24 sample points, the data was sufficient to accurately estimate the density of common species but was insufficient for rare species. The high percentage errors for rare species show that more sample points or a different sampling method may be needed to accurately estimate their densities.