Sampling styles
| Haphazard | Random | Systematic | |
| Eastern Hemlock | 80.47% | 44.67% | 19.17% |
| Sweet Birch | 87.23% | 6.383% | 6.383% |
| Yellow Birch | 74.47% | 37.74% | 54.1% |
| Chestnut Oak | N/A | 2.86% | 25.7% |
| Red Maple | 74.8% | 0.9251% | 9.336% |
| Striped Maple | 42.85% | 14.3% | 71.43% |
| White pine | N/A | N/A | 140% |
(E – T)/T*100, where E = estimated value and T = true value
The Systematic sampling method was the fastest at 5h9min to sample all quadrants. With a Shannon-Wiener’s index of 1.4 it was also tied as the most accurate method. Haphazard was the second fastest at 5h16min to sample all quadrants but with an index of 0.9, it was the least accurate. Finally, the randomized sampling method was the slowest taking 5h20min to sample all quadrants. With an index of 1.4 it was also tied for the most accurate.
We can see that the Haphazard sampling method was also the least reliable when it came to rare species (missing Chestnut Oak and White Pine from this survey). Therefore we can conclude that haphazard sampling should preferably give way to other methods.