In a recent virtual forest tutorial set in the scenic Mohn Hill Area, I explored how different sampling methods affect the accuracy and efficiency of species surveys. The three strategies I tested—Systematic Sampling, Random Sampling, and Haphazard Sampling—each came with their own strengths and weaknesses. Here’s what I found after collecting 25 samples per method. Out of the three techniques, Systematic Sampling was clearly the most time-efficient. It took just 12 hours and 37 minutes, compared to 13 hours and 13 minutes for Haphazard, and a longer 14 hours and 18 minutes for Random Sampling.
Red Maple
Random Sampling：0.00% error
Systematic: 4.87%
Haphazard: 9.98%
White Oak
Random :20.40% error
Systematic: 35.57%
Haphazard had the highest error at 51.68%
Black Tupelo
Systematic: 0.007% error
Haphazard: 1.41%
Random : 77.46%
White Pine
Systematic: 0.018% error
Haphazard: 6.25%
Random: 42.18%