For the Mohn Mill sampling sites, I used area-based sampling. Of the three sampling strategies, systematic sampling was the most efficient method (12 hours 35 minutes), followed by haphazard or subjective sampling (12 hours 40 minutes) and then finally simple random sampling (12 hours 58 minutes). The haphazard sampling method produced a Shannon-Weiner Diversity index of 1.8 which was the same as the actual data.
| Systematic | Simple Random | Haphazard | |
| Red Maple | 3.89% | 3.22% | 0.92% |
| White Oak | 24.83% | 6.31% | 32.89% |
| Chestnut Oak | 37.27% | 35.71% | 25.69% |
| Witch Hazel | 9.55% | 81.39% | 11.17% |
| Red/black oaks | 5.78% | 1.93% | 7.07% |
| Eastern hemlock | 21.05% | 119.3% | 91.89% |
| Black tupelo | 88.73% | 41.41% | 29.58% |
| White pine | 56.25 | 100% | 62.5% |
| Downy juneberry | 21.21% | 16.16% | 16.16% |
| Striped maple | 100% | 69.12% | 38.97% |
| Hawthorn | 11.11% | 6.67% | 177.78% |
| Black cherry | 100% | 100% | 180% |
| Sweet birch | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| American Basswood | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Yellow birch | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| White ash | 100% | 100% | 937.5% |
If we compare the percentage errors for the two most common species (in blue) and the two most rare species (in red) we can see that you get a much higher error rate for the rare species, in this case none of the sampling methods I used found any Yellow birch and haphazard sampling overestimated White ash density. The systematic sampling was more accurate for the more common species, but sometimes random sampling had a lower percentage error with no clear pattern. The results of this show that haphazard sampling may capture more types of trees, but not the relative abundance.