Honey Bee Distribution and the

Implications on Local Food

Production in the City of Toronto

UofT B.E.E.S.
University of Guelph
2014 - 2015
Honey bee (Apis mellifera) distribution and the implications
on local food production in the city of Toronto

Submitted To
Pieter Basedow
Chief Apiarist
UofT B.E.E.S.

Sandy Smith
Dean & Professor, Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto

Tom Nolan
President
Urban Toronto Beekeepers Association

Group Members

Rachelle Bisaillon
Kelsey Ducsharm
Luke Ecclestone
Kathleen Minkowski
Sandeep Sanghera
Brooke Wallace

Project in Environmental Sciences

ENVS*4011/4012
University of Guelph
2014 2015
 Thursday April 2nd, 2015
Pieter Basedow
Chief Apiarist
UofT B.E.E.S.

Dr. Sandy Smith

Dean & Professor, Faculty of Forestry
University of Toronto

Tom Nolan
President
Urban Toronto Beekeepers' Association

Dear Pieter, Sandy and Tom:

We are pleased to present you with our final research report entitled Honey bee (Apis mellifera)
distribution and the implications on local food production in the city of Toronto. The goal of
this report was to analyze the state of managed honey bee populations and pollination
requirements for local food production within the city of Toronto.
As requested, this report contains a map outlining approximate honey bee hive density as well as
community garden and green space locations within Metropolitan Toronto. We have also
provided recommendations in order to enhance urban beekeeping and local food production
within the city based on map analysis and a review of the relevant literature.
We hope this report satisfies the project requirements. If you have any comments or concerns
feel free to contact Brooke Wallace at wallaceb@mail.uoguelph.ca.

Sincerely,

Rachelle Bisaillon Kelsey Ducsharm Luke Ecclestone

Kathleen Minkowski Sandeep Sanghera Brooke Wallace

Firstly, we would like to thank Pieter Basedow and Nicole Chambo for their ongoing assistance,
support and optimism throughout this project.
We would also like to thank Paul Kozak for taking the time to assist us with gaining access to
hive location and density data.
Thanks to Tom Nolan and the Urban Toronto Beekeepers Association for educating us on the
world of beekeeping and their keen interest in our project.
Last but not least, we would like to extend our gratitude to Cynthia Scott-Dupree, Les Eccles and
Paul Sibley for providing background information and input in the preliminary stages of the
project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 Goals and Objectives .. 5

1.2 Terminology 5

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Local Food Production in Urban Environments .. 6

2.1.1 Effect of Urbanization on Agriculture and Local Food Production 6

2.1.2 Urban Local Food Production in Community Gardens . 8

2.1.3 Urban Local Food Production in Rooftop Gardens .. 10

2.2 Urban Honey Bee Populations . 12

2.2.1 Basic Honey Bee Biology . 12

2.2.2 Honey Bee Population Declines .. 15

2.2.3 Effects of Urbanization on Honey Bees . 18

3.0 METHODOLOGY .. 21

3.1 Data Collection ... 21

3.2 Map Creation . 21

3.2.1 Map Boundaries ... 22

3.3 Pollination Requirements Calculation 22

3.3.1 Calculation Assumptions 24

4.0 RESULTS . 25

4.1 Spatial Map .... 25

4.1.1 Map Interpretation . 27

 4.1.1.1 Honey Bee Hive Density ... 27

4.1.1.2 Foraging Location Abundance 28

4.2 Pollination Requirements Calculation 29

5.0 DISCUSSION . 31

5.1 Map Analysis . 31

5.1.1 Proposed Locations of Honey Bee Hives . 32

5.1.2 Proposed Locations of Foraging Locations ... 33

5.1.2.1 Benefits of Rooftop Gardens 34

5.2 Required Pollination Calculations ... 35

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . 36

6.1 Policy Changes ... 36

6.2 Gardening for Bees 38

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ..... 40

8.0 FUTURE STEPS . 41

WORKS CITED .... 42

APPENDIX A 48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the Ontario Local Food Act (2013), cities in Ontario must establish targets

to increase the use of local food., the City of Toronto has been presented with infrastructure

proposals to locally grow 30% of the produce consumed by Toronto residents by 2040 to meet

these goals (SfP Working Group, 2012). Local food production relies heavily on the both

sufficient agricultural land requirements and the presence of pollinating insects. Native

pollinators have been declining in recent years causing agriculture to rely more heavily on

managed colonies of honey bees (Apis mellifera) for pollination.

The goal of this project was to analyze the state of managed honey bee populations and

pollination requirements for local food production within the city of Toronto. This was

accomplished by: (1) a review of the relevant literature pertaining to urban food production and

honey bee success in urban environments, (2) creation of a digital spatial map showing honey

bee hive distribution and honey bee foraging areas, (3) development of a formula used to

calculate the pollination requirements needed to increase local food production and (4) analysis

of the current distribution of managed honey bee colonies to provide recommendations for

potential future honey bee colonies and foraging locations.

A review of literature demonstrated that community gardens and green roofs were a

significant source of urban agriculture (Baker, 2004; Okvat and Zautra, 2011; Orsini et al.,

2014). These urban gardens have the capacity to provide significant sources of fruits and

vegetables to local residents (Reeves et al., 2014). Pollinators were found to visit rooftop gardens

more infrequently than urban green space areas however,they were still found to be suitable

foraging resources (Colla et al., 2009; Tonietto et al., 2011; Ksiazek et al., 2012). The literature
review also determined that urban environments have the potential to sustain honey bee

populations. Urban planning departments should take honey bee habitat factors into

consideration when determining development and park locations (Tommasi et al., 2004).

The digital spatial map was created using ArcGIS and displays honey bee hive density

distribution and foraging locations. This information was obtained from Toronto urban

beekeepers and OMAFRA. Calculations were completed to determine the number of hives per

hectare required to effectively pollinate 30% of the produce consumed within the greater

Metropolitan Toronto area.

Our results suggest that honey bee hive density varied across the Metropolitan Toronto

area. Three areas of high hive density areas were designated across the city (Fig. 2). High hive

density, defined as 21 - 50 hives/km2, occurred in neighbourhoods approximately near The

Danforth, Cabbagetown, and Niagara neighbourhoods. There were five areas designated with

low hive density, defined as 1 - 2 hives/km2. These were found to be located near High Park,

Little Portugal, Liberty Village, Dufferin Grove and The Upper Beaches neighbourhoods. No

registered hive locations were determined to exist near the The Beach, Leslieville, Regent Park,

Garden District, Chinatown and Parkdale.

The distribution of foraging locations was found to be wide and relatively consistent

throughout the metropolitan area with a high density of green space around the Don River, High

Park, along the shore of Lake Ontario as well as in the North York area (Fig. 2). An

approximately even distribution of community gardens throughout the city was observed with

the exception of two areas (Fig. 2). Northern and Eastern Toronto had a noticeable lack of

community gardens.
 The pollination requirement calculation results show that 4855.5 hectares worth of

cropland is required to grow 30% of produce requirements within the city of Toronto. In

addition, Toronto would need ~7427 managed honey bee hives to effectively pollinate the crops

to sustain the 2.6 million residents of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area (Statistics Canada,

2012).

By synthesizing the information from the literature review conducted, the map of honey bee

hive distribution and honey bee foraging area and pollination potential calculation we can

conclude:

(1) Currently adequate foraging resources exist for current urbanized honey bee colonies in

Metropolitan Toronto, in the form of community gardens and green spaces.

(2) More hives can be added in many neighbourhoods across Toronto as there are numerous

potential foraging locations throughout the city that have not been utilized by honey bee.

(3) Based on our calculations 30% of the produce consumed by Torontonians cannot be

locally grown at this time without the use of innovative technology (such as green roofs)

and significant financial contributions.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Food availability has become a growing issue over the last few decades. As a result,

green spaces and urban areas are now being considered as potential sources of food production.

According to the Ontario Local Food Act (2013), cities in the province of Ontario must establish

targets to increase the use of local food by public sector organizations. In response to these

production goals, the City of Toronto has been presented with infrastructure proposals to locally

grow 30% of the produce consumed by Toronto residents by 2040 (SfP Working Group, 2012).

The exact amount of land required to reach this target and whether the resources exist for local

food production within the city are currently unknown. In addition to the land requirements, local

food production relies heavily on the presence of pollinating insects as many common crops

require insect-assisted pollen transfer for fertilization. Native pollinators have been declining in

recent years causing agriculture to rely more heavily on managed colonies of honey bees (Apis

mellifera) for pollination. Therefore, these local food production goals are unrealistic without

proper investment in an urban honey bee program (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998).

There is currently no monitoring tool for determining the number, density and health of

managed honey bee hives within the city of Toronto. This is problematic because to understand

how much food can be produced in an area within the city, local growers need to know what the

pollination capabilities are.

1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this project is to analyze the state of managed honey bee populations and

pollination requirements for local food production within the city of Toronto. This will be

accomplished by:

(1) Reviewing of the relevant literature pertaining to urban food production (see Section 2.1)

and honey bee success in urban environments (see Section 2.2);

(2) Creating a digital spatial map showing honey bee hive distribution and honey bee

foraging areas. This consists of: community gardens, rooftop gardens and green spaces in

the Metropolitan Toronto area;

(3) Developing a formula to calculate the pollination requirements needed to increase local

food production;

(4) Analysing the current distribution of managed honey bee colonies to provide

recommendations for potential future honey bee colonies and foraging locations.

1.2 TERMINOLOGY

For the purposes of this report, it should be noted that a hive refers to a managed honey

bee colony. A green space refers to urban park and conservation area locations within the city

of Toronto. A community garden refers to a floral resource of nectar and pollen; it can include

but is not limited to vegetable gardens and flower gardens.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS

2.1.1 Effect of Urbanization on Agriculture and Local Food Production

The city of Toronto imports approximately 50-60% of its produce from Florida, Mexico,

and California (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1999) due to loss of agricultural land in the

surrounding area. Due to past and proposed future development plans, the Greater Toronto Area

is expected to lose 40% of its farmland by 2025, in comparison to 1976 (Toronto Food Policy

Council, 1999). The literature on historical and current urbanization trends, policy and

recommendations from other cities was examined to determine potential solutions for increasing

local food production in the city of Toronto,

During the post-war decades of the 1950s and 60s, development was focused on fulfilling

the values of that time: home ownership and automobile travel (Port and Moos, 2014). This

resulted in large private lots and wide roads to accommodate the changing landscape. These

communities residing just outside of the metropolitan area were called suburbs (Port and Moos,

2014). More people moved into the suburbs as cities expanded, which resulted in increased

housing development in prime agricultural and rural lands (Port and Moos, 2014). This

phenomenon is currently known as urban sprawl. In the study by Port and Moos (2014), the

authors found that urban sprawl decreased agricultural land and increased automobile use as well

as resource consumption. With this continuous change from agricultural to residential land uses,

local food production is at risk. Historically, there have been policies in place that prohibit food

production activities or beekeeping in metropolitan areas to keep land available for development

(Port and Moos, 2014). Currently, hobby beekeeping, composting, community gardens, and
green roofs are widely accepted within the city of Toronto and there are explicit policies in place

to preserve urban agro-ecosystems (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1999).

Recommendations for increasing urban agriculture and local food production were also

examined. It has been identified that urban trends in development are shifting towards urban

planning designs that promote walkability and public green space. This involves building

medium- to high-density housing and decreasing private lot size (Port and Moos, 2014). This

change in urban development from low- to high-density designs will help prevent the outward

spread of cities and contain growth to a limited area (Port and Moos, 2014). To promote local

food production, urban communities are searching for opportunities to convert various urban

spaces into backyard and community gardens or green roofs (Baker, 2004) (see Section 2.1.2 and

Section 2.1.3). This conversion of area has been shown to reduce resource dependence, increase

social cohesion, and decrease food transportation costs (Port and Moos, 2014). In addition,

zoning within the city of Toronto should be used more effectively to optimize land designation

(Toronto Food Policy Council, 1999). For example, land designated for agriculture in Toronto is

currently being used as cemeteries, open spaces or hospitals. Efforts must be made to use land

according to its zoning designation more effectively.

Historically the focus of urbanization was attracting industries, intensifying the urban

core, and building outward to accommodate housing demands. Now, the focus has transitioned to

containing growth, increasing green space and promoting local food production through

improved legislation and creation of community gardens (Baker, 2004; Port and Moos, 2014).
2.1.2 Urban Local Food Production in Community Gardens

An urban garden or a community garden is defined as land used for growing food from

people of different families [who are] usually urban dwellers with limited access to their own

land (Okvat and Zautra, 2011). They provide people with access to healthy and affordable food,

while regenerating the local food system and preserving urban green space (Baker, 2004). The

idea of producing food within urban locations like cities is not new, though it has lost popularity

within westernized cultures following the rise of industrial scale agriculture (Okvat and Zautra,

2011). To determine the feasibility of using community gardens for local food production,

relevant literature was examined. This literature pertained to the popularity of urban community

gardens, the benefits to humans and wildlife and the capacity of these gardens to produce locally

grown food.

Throughout history urban gardens have been an integral part of human culture and today

people around the world still depend on these gardens for their main source of food production

(Okvat and Zautra, 2011). In westernized cultures, industrial scale agriculture has been the

primary source of food production (Okvat and Zautra, 2011). However, in the last few decades

there has been a major resurgence in the popularity of urban community gardens in the western

world (Tsilini et al., 2014). This reduces the demand for industrially produced foods and

decreases food transport (Okvat and Zautra, 2011).

In addition to producing locally grown food, there are a number of other reasons urban

community gardens are regaining popularity based on the benefits they provide. The

socioeconomic benefits to humans include increased community connectivity and improved the

local air quality (Armstrong, 2000; Okvat and Zautra, 2011). In terms of the environment, green
spaces and community gardens are beneficial as they increase local wildlife diversity (Goddard

et al. 2010). They act as habitat corridors to allow species such as birds and insects to move

safely through densely populated areas without being disrupted by human disturbance (Goddard

et al., 2010). They concluded that community gardens can assist with the prevention of

extirpation and extinction of many ecologically important species in urban environments

(Goddard et al., 2010).

There has been speculation on whether or not community gardens can produce enough

food to sustain local populations. Presently, there are 110 community gardens and even more

private backyard gardens in the City of Toronto (TCGN, 2014). In the study by Reeves et al.

(2014), they compared the productivity of tomato plants in urban community gardens to rural

environments using on soil quality and fruit yield in Cleveland, Ohio. They determined that

although soil nutrient content did differ between urban and rural environments, there was no

direct evidence of nutrient limitation in urban community gardens (Reeves et al., 2014). In

addition, they found that the yield of tomatoes in urban community gardens was consistent with

the national yield average per square metre for commercial tomato production in the U.S.A. This

corroborates the conclusions of Baker (2004), who found that community gardens can be so

productive that they exceed national standards fivefold for mixed-vegetable production. These

conclusions show that community gardens have the capacity to be an important source of local

food production and can produce similar yields to commercial operations.

Pollination of community gardens has also been identified as a potential area of concern.

Without visitation of pollinators such as honey bees (A. mellifera), many crops would not be able

to reproduce and thus no fruit would be produced (Tommasi et al., 2004). In the study by

Henning and Ghazoul (2011), they observed a positive correlation between plant diversity with
bee visits. Pawelek et al. (2009) also observed an increase in bee abundance when increasing

plant diversity in the same garden. To increase food production and resulting honey bee

visitation it is recommended to avoid planting monocultures.

In conclusion, community gardens are increasing in popularity as a source of significant

urban agriculture (Baker, 2004; Okvat and Zautra, 2011). These urban gardens have the capacity

to provide significant sources of fruits and vegetables to local residents (Reeves et al., 2014) as

well as provide refuges for local wildlife (Goddard et al., 2010). Community garden productivity

can be enhanced by planting a variety of crops to increase the frequency of pollinator visits to

these gardens (Pawelek et al., 2009; Henning and Ghazoul, 2011).

2.1.3 Urban Local Food Production in Rooftop Gardens

Green space is becoming increasingly important in urban areas. Recent urban planning

endeavours in North American cities have shown a trend towards increasing the proportion of

green space found in metropolitan areas (AGRP, 2009). One example of these new green spaces

is green roofs. Shevory (2010) describes green roofs as typically flat or sometimes sloped

rooftops with soil beds used to grow vegetation. The number of green roofs has increased from

93 to 1300 from 2000 to 2012 (AGRP, 2009). In order to determine the feasibility of green roofs

as a source of local food production it is important to examine the relevant literature on the

productivity of green roofs and the frequency of pollinator visitation.

There has been speculation on whether or not rooftop gardens can be a significant crop

growing source to aid with increasing the percentage of local food production. In the study by

Orsini et al., (2014), they compared the rooftops available for gardens to the food demand

required based on population and diet data of residents in Bologna, Italy. It was determined that
if all potential rooftop garden locations were utilized, 12, 000 tonnes of vegetables per year could

be produced (Orsini et al., 2014). When this was compared to the yearly vegetable requirements

of residents, it was concluded that this would satisfy 77% of the consumption requirements of

Bologna residents (Orsini et al., 2014). In addition, enclosed green roofs were shown to extend

the growing season into the winter months resulting in increased yield and thus, increased

productivity (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1999).

Pollination of crops on green roofs has been identified as an issue due to the increased

height at which the foraging resources are located. In the study by Tonietto et al. (2011), the

authors compared bee abundance, as well as other variables including community composition,

to determine the suitability of green roofs as habitats relative to urban green space. Lower honey

bee abundance was found on green roofs in comparison to city parks (Tonietto et al., 2011;

Ksiazek et al., 2012). In addition, Ksiazek et al. (2012) also observed that honey bees foraging

on green roofs had significantly smaller body sizes in comparison to those found on the ground.

Although green roofs have lower bee abundance than parks, they are still suitable habitats for

bees in North America (Colla et al., 2009). A possible reason given by Tonietto et al. (2011) for

honey bees observed on green roofs was that park sites in the study had areas that consisted of

native plant species, which are known to attract a greater number of honey bees (Frankie et al.,

2005). Tonietto et al. (2011) found as well as having higher native plant diversity, green roofs

should have plant species that bloom from May to October in temperate regions to further

increase the number of honey bees.

In conclusion, green roofs can provide a significant source of urban agriculture to assist

with local food production goals (Orsini et al., 2014). Although pollinators do not visit rooftop

gardens as frequently as other urban green space areas such as city parks, they have been
identified as suitable foraging resources for honey bee (Colla et al., 2009; Tonietto et al., 2011;

Ksiazek et al., 2012). To improve pollination in rooftop environments it is recommended that

native plants and plants with blooming periods from May to October be sown in addition to

crops to encourage pollinator visitation (Frankie et al., 2005; Tonietto et al., 2011).

2.2 URBAN HONEY BEE POPULATIONS

2.2.1 Basic Honey Bee Biology

The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is a herbivorous insect of the Apidae family with a wide

global distribution (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). Once considered a wild insect, the majority of

honey bee populations are now kept by beekeepers in managed colonies. They yield a variety of

products for human use such as honey and beeswax. Moreover, they provide important

ecosystem services due to their ability to pollinate local crops and vegetation (Butler, 1949). It is

important to first gain an understanding of their anatomy, colony organization, foraging habits

and communication abilities, to establish the health of honey bee populations in urban

environments.

The anatomy of a honey bee includes a head, thorax, abdomen, and six legs (Herrod-

Hempsall, 1943) (see Fig. 1). They possess an exoskeleton made up of chitin which covers the

softer hypodermis (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). The honey bee frame is supported with tendons,

membranes and stout braces (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). Their body shape is very aerodynamic

allowing for high flight speeds, and they can reach speeds up to 10 m/s (Herrod-Hempsall,

1943). Flight is inhibited when temperatures decrease below 10C, or after sunset as they cannot

fly in the dark (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943).

 Figure 1- The basic anatomy of a honey bee
(Snodgrass, 1956)

Honey bees are social in nature and live in colonies of approximately 6000 to 20,000

individuals (Beekman et al., 2004). A colony is made up of three distinct classes of bee: queen,

worker, and drone (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). Typically, there is only one queen per colony,

although there may be two while queen supersedure takes place (Seeley, 2010). This occurs

when an old queen continues to lay eggs before a new queen is reared by the worker bees and

mated (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). The purpose of the queen bee is to reproduce and create more

bees for the colony; all of the eggs in a colony are laid by the queen. Unfertilized eggs become

the haploid male drones of the hive while the fertilized eggs develop into diploid female worker

bees (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943).

It is the thousands of worker bees that govern the colony. The workers determine how

many eggs will be laid by regulating the diet of the queen (Howse, 1982). If the queen is fed

more, she will lay more eggs and when she is fed less, she will abstain from laying (Howse,

1982). Worker bees also perform all of the work involved in creating and maintaining the

colony. The workers secrete wax to build combs, regulate temperature, clean the cells of the

comb, make honey and rear the brood. (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). As well as performing all the

tasks within the colony, the worker bees also leave to collect food and pollinate plants.
 The last class of bee is the male drone. There are typically hundreds of drones in a

colony. The sole purpose of a drone is for reproduction and they perform no other tasks within

the colony. At the end of the active season when the bees are preparing for winter, the worker

bees attack the drones and expel them from the colony (Herrod-Hempsall, 1943). This is because

resources during this time are scarce. In the spring, when the colony begins to increase activity,

the queen will lay more drones for the season (Howse, 1971).

Honey bees have a number of attributes that contribute to their foraging efficiency and

subsequent pollination ability. These include advanced cognitive skills, excellent navigational

instincts and an accurate internal clock (Howse, 1982). Honey bees detect floral resources

through both olfactory senses and sight (Butler, 1949). They are attracted to strong smelling,

brightly coloured plants (Butler, 1949). They forage for both pollen and nectar (Butler, 1949).

Pollen provides them with proteins, minerals, and vitamins, while nectar provides them with

carbohydrates (Butler, 1949). Honey bees communicate the location of resources via a social

waggle dance language (Beekman et al., 2004). When bees return to the hive after retrieving

food, they use body language to communicate the distance and direction in which the food

source lies (Tarpy, n.d.). This allows other bees to locate the food quickly and enhances foraging

efficiency and maximizes food collection (Howse, 1971).

2.2.2 Honey Bee Population Declines

Many scientists believe that we are facing a "Global Pollinator Crisis" (Genersch, 2010).

Since we depend on pollinators such as honey bees for our global food security, the loss of these

pollinators is deeply concerning. This steady decline of honey bees over the past 10 years is due

to a subjection to a variety of diseases and environmental threats (Genersch, 2010). Colony

collapse disorder was first observed in the U.S. in 2006 (Genersch, 2010). Since then, there has

been a reduction in the overwintering capabilities of managed honey bee colonies (Genersch,

2010). A combination of factors including pathogens, habitat fragmentation, climate change and

pesticides are attributed to the significant loss of honey bee colonies each year.

Honey bee diseases and parasites have been known to play a significant role in the

decline of bee populations (Genersch, 2010). The parasitic mite, Varroa destructor (V.

destructor), is responsible for the highest amount of damage and economic cost than any other

bee disease (Genersch, 2010). This parasite is so common that it is almost impossible to find a V.

destructor free colony in North America today. V. destructor relies on its honey bee host for its

entire lifespan causing catastrophic effects on the colony (Genersch, 2010). The consequences on

the host include: reduced size and weight of the offspring, decreased flight performance and

sperm production in drones, as well as reduced capability of learning, orientation and homing

ability in foragers (Genersch, 2010). Death of the whole colony can occur if V. destructor mites

are left untreated.

Another consequence is impaired immune capacity in individuals in the infected colony.

This increases the susceptibility of honey bees to other pathogens (Genersch, 2010). There are 18

different known viruses affecting honey bees and many are vectored by V. destructor (Genersch,
2010). These include the Kashmir bee virus, sacbrood virus, acute bee paralysis virus, Israel

acute paralysis virus and deformed wing virus (Genersch, 2010). Prior to the introduction of V.

destructor, these viruses only caused dormant infections. The symptoms and effects are more

pronounced in the presence of V. destructor (Hails et al. 2008). In addition to Varroa mites, there

are two bacterial pathogens (M. plutonius and P. larvae) and one fungal pathogen (Nosema spp.)

which have been known to cause disease in honey bees. The Nosema ceranae fungus is

particularly damaging to the colony becauses it causes the infected individuals to have higher

food requirements, which poses greater energetic stress on the colony (Naug, 2009).

Pests and pathogens are responsible for catastrophic honey bee colony losses (Genersch,

2010). Therefore with increased occurrence of pathogen infection in managed hives, it is

important to understand how the infections are transmitted, how it may interact with the host and

how the environmental conditions may favor an outbreak in order to be able to address these

emerging infectious diseases (Furst et al. 2014).

The fragmentation and degradation of natural habitats by human activity can be

detrimental to honey bee colonies due to losses of important foraging resources (Klein et al.

2007). The nutritional stress from habitat loss plays an important role in the collapse of a colony.

In the study by Naug (2009), they found that larger open land areas had significantly higher

honey yield and honey bee populations than small confined areas. The study also found that

scarcity of nectar and pollen due to poor foraging conditions caused a reduction in both adult

survival, brood development rates and overall population of the colony (Naug, 2009). Solutions

may include beekeepers to provide supplemental nutrition to their colonies, along with the

preservation of pollinator habitats (Naug, 2009).

 Similarly, climate change may be contributing to declining honey bee populations. This

could be due to factors such as increased prevalence of viruses in warmer temperatures and

trophic mismatches between honey bee emergence and floral blooming times. It was found that

the abundance of the fungal pathogen N. ceranae is projected to increase as a result of warmer

temperatures (Gisder et al., 2010). The interactions between honey bees and their associated

pollinating plants could be particularly vulnerable to a change in temperature because of the

potential for a mismatch in phenology (Bartomeus et al., 2011). The literature demonstrates that

changes in phenology between honey bee emergence in spring and the blooming times of floral

resources are paralleled (Bartomeus et al., 2011). Evidence was found that honey bees are

keeping pace with shifts in host-plant flowering, with urban heat-island effects showing greater

advance in plant blooming times (Bartomeus et al., 2011). This finding only emphasizes the need

for further research on the effects of climate warming on changes in plant and bee phenology in

urban environments.

Finally, evidence suggests a positive association between colony collapse disorder and

the application of neonicotinoid pesticides (Tapparo et al., 2013). Many scientists believe that

there is enough evidence to put the question of causality beyond reasonable doubt (Tapparo et

al., 2013). Neonicotinoids affect bee colonies by making them more susceptible to infection of

disease and parasites (Tapparo et al., 2013). Evidence also suggests that the pesticide may also

cause behavioral difficulties in foraging honey bees, such as memory and learning dysfunctions

which impact navigation skills (Henry et al., 2012). Bees become exposed through either the

coated guttation drops of the crop or through direct powdering of foraging bees that happen to be

in the field during application (Tapparo et al., 2013). The rest of the hive becomes exposed when

the foragers return to the colony to store and exchange the contaminated material with the hive
(Henry et al., 2012). The study by Henry et al., (2012) demonstrates that even exposure to a very

small amount of neonicotinoids can lead to an increase risk of colony collapse disorder.

In conclusion, the relevant literature shows that colony collapses are caused by a

combination of environmental and anthropogenic factors (Genersch, 2010). In order to protect

against colony collapse it is important that beekeepers control for Varroa mite infestations to

reduce the susceptibility and frequency of honey bee disease, and to provide supplemental

nutrition to account for foraging area decreases (Genersch, 2010; Naug, 2009). More research

needs to be completed on the effects of climate change on honey bee colonies, with emphasis on

urban honey bee populations. Furthermore, there exists a plethora of research of the negative

effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, and policymakers should act by banning this insecticide in

order to increase the chance of honey bee survival (Henry et al. 2012).

2.2.3 Effects of Urbanization on Honey Bees

Nearly half of the worlds population lives in cities with trends towards urbanization

continuing to increase (Lowenstein et al., 2014). These land use changes can have serious

implications for pollinators such as honey bees. Decreased foraging resources, subjection to

pollutants, pesticides and human disturbance all have significant negative effects on honey bee

colonies. With the increased reliance on urban honey bees as pollinators and recent honey bee

declines (see Section 2.2.2), it is imperative to determine the effects land use changes and

chemical exposure have on their honey bee abundance and foraging. Furthermore, proposed

recommendations to mitigate issues should be investigated.

There is conflicting evidence in the literature surrounding the effects of urbanization on

honey bee abundance with respect to pollen and nectar foraging. Honey bee foraging was found
to be affected by the spatial and temporal distribution of floral resources, colony placement and

overwintering capabilities (Kremen et al., 2007). Lowenstein et al., (2014) conducted a case

study of bee diversity and abundance in Chicago, IL and found that bee abundance actually

increased with increasing human disturbance. This was attributed to highly populated areas

having more diverse flowering plant gardens (Banaszak-Cibicka & Zmihorski, 2012; Lowenstein

et al., 2014). Other studies suggest that if appropriate nesting sites and suitable floral resources

are accessible within honey bee foraging ranges, honey bees should be able to sustainably persist

within urban environments (McFrederick & LeBuhn, 2005; Kremen et al., 2007; Tommasi et al.,

2007; Banaszak-Cibicka & Zmihorski, 2012). There was also evidence of no significant

differences in honey bee foraging in urbanized environments compared to more natural

environments along an urbanization gradient (Steffan-Dewenter et al., 2003; Banaszak-Cibicka

& Zmihorski, 2012). However, one study found that honey bees preferred nature reserves over

other environments such as agricultural land and built-up areas (Couvillon et al., 2014). Urban

wild environments and green spaces were shown to have the highest importance in bee foraging

success (McFrederick & LeBuhn, 2005; Tommasi et al., 2007). Warmer temperatures in city

environments were found to assist with overwintering (Banaszak-Cibicka & Zmihorski, 2012).

It has been identified that managed honey bee populations are frequently exposed to a

wide range of chemicals that can impact survival, foraging success and development in urban

environments (Vanbergen, 2013). While there are many instances of the lethality of pesticides on

honey bees, individuals that experience sublethal exposure have been shown to cause memory

functioning and navigational impairment (Henry et al., 2012). This is more pronounced in

complex environments (such as urban areas) as returning to the colony is more navigationally

challenging (Henry et al., 2012). Other chemicals such as volatile organic compounds, abundant
in urban environments have been shown to disrupt olfactory abilities of pollinators, thus

impacting foraging ability (Girling et al., 2013; Riffel et al., 2014). In the study by Girling et al.

(2013), they used a synthetic blend of eight floral odours, and trained the bees to recognize the

odour blend. After exposing these chemicals to diesel exhaust pollution, they found a significant

reduction in the ability of the trained honey bees to find their foraging areas. This is because the

mono-nitrogen oxide (NOx) fractions degrade floral odours. As vehicle pollution increases in

urban environments, honey bee foraging efficiency may be reduced (Girling et al. 2013).

Although honey bees are sensitive to chemicals found in urban environments, they were

found to have a low sensitivity to human activities (Frankie et al., 2005). Honey bees are

preferential pollinators for urban areas in comparison to other bee species because activities such

as gardening and close proximity do not deter them from pollinating (Frankie et al.,

2005). Furthermore, honey bees have been observed to pollinate a wide range of plant species in

urban areas (Frankie et al., 2005).

Based on a review of the literature, urban environments have the potential to sustain

honey bee populations. Exposure of honey bees to low concentrations of pesticides and other

chemicals has the potential to be problematic (Henry et al., 2012; Riffel et al., 2014). It has been

concluded that placing colonies in areas with high flowering plant density and high sunlight

availability to allow for maximum foraging, may mitigate some of the negative effects of urban

environments (Lowenstein et al., 2014). Additionally, urban planning departments should take

honey bee habitat factors into consideration when determining development and park locations

(Tommasi et al., 2004). Increasing green spaces with high proportions of natural areas would

greatly benefit honey bee populations (McFrederick & LeBuhn, 2005; Banaszak-Cibicka &

Zmihorski, 2012).
3.0 METHODS

3.1 DATA COLLECTION

The data for the final map was obtained from October 2014 to February 2015 using the

baseline data was downloaded from the University of Torontos Map and Data Library and the

Ontario Governments geography network in the form of shapefiles (OBM, 2015; UofT Map and

Data Library, 2015). This data included streets, water bodies, including Lake Ontario,

municipality boundaries, and green spaces within the City of Toronto. To obtain more specific

green space locations, such as community gardens, the Community Garden Network granted

permission for the use of their garden location data within Toronto. This data was obtained

through their website: http://www.tcgn.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=TorontoGardens.FrontPage.

Through personal correspondence at the Urban Toronto Beekeepers Association

monthly member meetings and emails from Toronto beekeepers, honey bee hive locations within

Metropolitan Toronto were collected. Additional honey bee hive locations were provided by the

Provincial Apiarist from the Ontario Beekeepers Association (OBA), Paul Kozak, and sent as

shapefiles.

3.2 MAP CREATION

The final map was created using the computer mapping program, ArcGIS. All data

received was converted into the appropriate projection and input into ArcGIS. Different layers

were created in order to better display the locations and densities of honey bee hives in the

Toronto area along with vegetated areas and community garden locations.
 First, the base map was chosen with the projection NAD 1983 17N. The geospatial data

was uploaded to display create layers of green space, water, streets, community and the general

honey bee hive location data. To distinguish between the honey bee hive density ranges, the

colours of the regions where the honey bee hives are found were split into different colour

regions of increasing density.

3.2.1 Map Boundaries

The boundaries of the map consist of the Lakeshore to the south, Lawrence Avenue to the

north, Scarborough to the east and High Park to the west. These boundaries encompass the area

of focus for determining honey bee hive density, which is Metropolitan Toronto.

3.3 POLLINATION REQUIREMENTS CALCULATION

For the purposes of this report the term pollination potential will be used to refer to the

amount of cropland in hectares that can be effectively pollinated in the presence of a given

number of managed honey bee hives. The calculations completed in Free (1970) to determine

pollination requirements under a range of climatic conditions along with calculations made by

the Ontario Beekeepers Association were used to determine Metropolitan Torontos overall

pollination requirements.

Calculations were completed to determine the number of hives per hectare required to

effectively pollinate 30% of the produce consumed within the greater Metropolitan Toronto area.

Firstly, the amount of produce (defined as fruit and vegetable crops only) the population in

Toronto consumes annually was determined using population data from Statistics Canada (2012)

for the year 2011 on both the total population of Ontario and Toronto. Then the total population

of Toronto was divided by the total population of the province to determine the proportion of
Ontario residents reside within the study areas. Then this number was multiplied by the total

amount of land used to grow all produce crops within Ontario (79543 ha). This yielded the

amount of produce consumed within the study area. The information on total amount of produce

grown within Ontario for the most recent year available (2011) was obtained from the Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2013). The proportionate amount of land

needed within Toronto to meet the 30% production goal by multiplying them by 0.3 (see

Equation 1).

Equation 1 - Equation used to determine the amount of cropland required (ha) to produce 30% of produce locally

Secondly, the pollination potential required to meet the 30% target was then determined

by calculating what percent of the total produce grown in Ontario in 2011 was, represented by

each major crop type. This was done by multiplying the total amount of produce consumed

within the Metropolitan Toronto area from Equation 1, with the relative proportions of total

produce grown in Ontario. This determines the quantity, in hectares, of agricultural land that

would be needed to locally sustain Metropolitan Torontos population, assuming that produce

consumption in Toronto is proportional to the population density of the area. To calculate the

amount of managed hives required per crop type to effectively pollinate 30% of the produce the

number of hives per hectare was multiplied by the amount of produce grown for each crop type

(Equation 2) and the results were summed.

Equation 2 - Equation used to calculate the amount of managed honey bee hives required to grow 30% local
produce

3.3.1 Calculation Assumptions

Assumptions were made to simplify the calculations. The first assumption made was that

no wild pollinator species are present to contribute to the pollination effort. Although, wild

pollinators play a large role in global pollination they were not included in the calculation. This

is justified by Garibaldi et al., (2011) who found that the effects of wild pollinator populations

within a major metropolitan area are negligible. The second assumption made for the calculation

was that managed bee hives represent an average peak colony size of 40,000 bees with

approximately one third of those bees participating in active pollination duties; based on

vanEngelsdorp and Meixner (2010). Free (1970) notes that calculating a general pollination

potential per area of agricultural land is subject to a great deal of variability as many different

factors can influence the pollination requirement of a crop (i.e. hive size).

For the calculations involving equation 2, it was assumed that all the produce grown in

Ontario is consumed within Ontario to simplify the conversion calculation involved with

converting the amount of produce grown to the amount consumed. Similarly, it was assumed that

any amount of produce exported out of the province is replaced with the equivalent amount of

imported produce. Finally, the assumption was made that the variety and proportion of produce

grown in Toronto is proportional to the amount and variety grown in Ontario.

 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 SPATIAL MAP

Figure 2 - Distribution of registered honey bee hives within the City of Toronto. This map shows the location and density
(per square kilometre) (Yellow, Peach, Orange, Red) of honey bee hives in Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding area
along with green space (Green) and foraging point sources defined as community gardens, rooftop gardens and flower
gardens (Purple) (Spatial map adapted from OMAFRA hive data, 2015).
Figure 3 - An example of a highly productive area in The Danforth neighbourhood.
There are ~21 - 50 managed honey bee hives located in this 1 km2 area, along with 3
foraging locations and abundant nearby green space in Flemingdon Park.

Figure 4 - An example of a low productivity area in the Upper Beaches

neighbourhood. There are ~1-2 managed honey bee hives located in this 1 km2 area.
One community garden location is nearby.
 Figure 5 - An example of an area with low hive density and high proportion of
green space located in the High Park neighbourhood. This area has high potential
for additional bee hive locations.

4.1.1 Map Interpretation

4.1.1.1 Honey Bee Hive Density

Honey bee hive density varied across the Metropolitan Toronto area. Three areas of high

hive density areas were observed across the city (Fig. 2). High hive density, defined as 21 - 50

hives/km2, occurred in neighbourhoods approximately near The Danforth, Cabbagetown, and

Niagara neighbourhoods (see Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows an example of a highly productive honey

bee pollination area located near The Danforth. There is a high concentration of honey bee hives

accompanied with a high number of nearby foraging locations. This consisted of three

community garden locations and abundant green space including Flemingdon Park, Crothers

Woods, Lower Don Parkland, Chorley Park and Moore Park Ravine (Fig. 3). This high hive
density area is located next to the Don Valley Parkway (Fig. 3), a major contributor of

automobile pollution in the city.

There were five areas designated with low hive density, defined as 1 - 2 hives/km2. These

were found to be located approximately near High Park, Little Portugal, Liberty Village,

Dufferin Grove and The Upper Beaches neighbourhoods (Fig. 2). Figure 4 depicts an area of low

productivity due to low hive density and lack of foraging resources in close proximity in The

Upper Beaches neighbourhood. Some green space is present but no community garden locations

exist within the square kilometre and only one is located near the neighbourhood. Figure 5

depicts an area of low productivity with high pollination potential. This shows low hive density

in the neighbourhood surrounding High Park. High Park represents a large green space area

suitable for honey bee foraging. No registered hive locations were determined to exist near the

The Beach, Leslieville, Regent Park, Garden District, Chinatown, and Parkdale. Due to their

large foraging ranges, all the managed honey bee hives were found to be within sufficient floral

resource ranges.

4.1.1.2 Foraging Location Abundance

The distribution of foraging locations was found to be wide and relatively consistent

throughout the metropolitan area with a high density of green space around the Don River, High

Park, along the shore of Lake Ontario as well as in the North York area (Fig. 2). An mostly even

distribution of community gardens throughout the city was observed with the exception of two

areas (Fig. 2). Northern and Eastern Toronto had a noticeable lack of community gardens. A

greater number of green spaces were found around the downtown perimeter, often with low

density of hives in close proximity (Fig. 2).

 All the areas with high density of hives are within foraging distance of green space. The

map shows no hives or community gardens around Woodbine Park and The Beach conservation

area. The distribution of hive density does not coincide with the distribution of green space as

more hives are located closer to the downtown core (Fig. 2).

4.2 REQUIRED POLLINATION CALCULATION

Table 1 shows that 4855.5 hectares worth of cropland is required to grow 30% of produce

requirements within the city of Toronto. In addition, Toronto would need approximately 7427

managed honey bee hives to effectively pollinate the crops to sustain the 2.6 million residents of

the Metropolitan Toronto area (Statistics Canada, 2012). When the required hive numbers were

compared to the current registered hive numbers (~180 hives), it was calculated that the city of

Toronto currently only contains 2.4% of the theoretical amount of hives required for 30% local

food production.
 Table 1 This table shows the approximate amount of produce grown within Ontario in 2011 as well as the
proportion of produce needed to support the Metropolitan Toronto area based on population size. It also includes
pollination requirements for the major fruit and vegetable crops produced in Ontario. Note that in this case
negligible refers to crops that do not rely on insect pollinators for fertilization. Information adapted from Statistics
Canada (2012), OMAFRA (2013) and the Ontario Beekeepers Association (2014) and Free, (1970).

Amount of Relative Amount of Estimated Total Number of

Major Fruit and
Major Crops Proportion of Produce Needed Number of Hives Managed Hives
Vegetable Crops
Produced in Total Produce in Toronto to Required for Needed to
Produced in
Ontario in Grown In Meet Production Pollination Per Effectively Pollinate
Ontario
2011 (Ha) Toronto Goals (Ha) Hectare Crop

Sweet Corn 10,336 0.12994229 630.9348151 negligible 0

Potatoes 15,129 0.190199012 923.5113021 negligible 0

Green Peas 6,119 0.076926945 373.5187823 negligible 0

Tomatoes 6,710 0.084356889 409.5948732 negligible 0

Green Beans 3,717 0.046729442 226.8948053 negligible 0

Carrots 3,988 0.050136404 243.4373106 2.5 608.5932766

Pumpkin/ Squash 3,338 0.041964723 203.7597149 2.5 509.3992872

Dry Onions 2,613 0.032850157 159.503935 2.5 398.7598374

Cucumbers 1,410 0.017726261 86.06986158 2.5 215.174654

Peppers 1,575 0.019800611 96.14186666 negligible 0

Broccoli 1,824 0.022930993 111.341438 2.5 278.3535949

Cabbage 1,357 0.017059955 82.83461147 negligible 0

Asparagus 1,100 0.013828998 67.14670053 3 201.4401016

Grapes 7,439 0.093521743 454.0948229 5 2270.474115

Apples 6,406 0.080535057 391.0379669 5 1955.189834

Peaches 2,612 0.032837585 159.4428925 2.5 398.6072313

Strawberries 1,329 0.016707944 81.12542273 2.5 202.8135568

Cherries 1181 0.014847315 72.09113938 2.5 180.2278485

Pears 560 0.007040217 34.18377481 2.5 85.45943703

Plums 435 0.00546874 26.55346794 2.5 66.38366984

Raspberries 365 0.004588713 22.28049608 2.5 55.70124021

Total 79,543 1 4855.5 7426.577684

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 MAP ANALYSIS

Hive density was determined to be relatively sporadic within the Metropolitan Toronto

area and did not coincide with foraging locations and green space locations. Honey bees have

wide foraging ranges and have been recorded to forage for pollen and nectar as far as 4.5

kilometres away from the colony (vanEngelsdorp and Meixner, 2010). Given the current

distribution of hives within the city, all foraging honey bees can collect nectar and pollen from

community garden locations and green spaces in surrounding neighbourhoods. Productivity and

efficiency of honey bee hives tends to be enhanced when located in close proximity to high

quality foraging sources (Beekman et al., 2004). In urban environments it has been determined

that average foraging distances of productive honey bee hives were between 0.62 and 0.67 km in

peak summer periods (Beekman et al., 2004).

A high density of hives was found to be located close to the Don Valley Parkway which

is a potential concern due to vehicular exhaust degradation of floral odours. Numerous studies

have found that volatile organic compounds, such as nitrogen monoxide fractions in exhaust

reduce the ability of honey bees to find floral resources to collect pollen and nectar (Girling et

al., 2013; Riffel et al., 2014). This may result in decreased foraging efficiency of honey bees

(Girling et al., 2013). Based on factors such as foraging locations, density of hives and sources of

pollutions in surrounding areas was used to determine potential honey bee hive locations (see

Section 5.1.1). In addition, potential foraging locations in the form of gardens and green roofs

are suggested in Section 5.1.2.

Figure 6 - This figure identifies the specific neighbourhoods within Metropolitan Toronto that have both low
densities of honey bee hives and high frequency of foraging locations (areas of green space or community gardens).
It shows the areas that would benefit from additional hives.

5.1.1 Proposed Locations of Honey Bee Hives

Potential locations of bee hives should be close to areas with large amounts of foraging

resources and away from sources of automobile pollution (Girling et al. 2013). Pollution from

automobiles has been found to decrease floral odours and thus reducing foraging abilities on bees

(Girling et al. 2013). An example of such an area is the high-hive density area of Flemington

Park, which is located next to the Don Valley Parkway. Areas close to highways, such as The

Gardiner Expressway, The 400 series Highways and Don Valley Parkway be avoided in the

future for potential hive location. Currently areas with low density were found High Park, Little
Portugal, Liberty Village, Dufferin Grove and The Upper Beaches areas. All these areas have the

potential to support a greater number of hives.

According to Figure 6, the distribution of hive density does not coincide with the

distribution of green space. There is significant foraging area around The Beach, Leslieville,

Regent Park, Garden District, Chinatown, and Parkdale with no hives, providing an ideal

location to place hives around. The areas surrounding High Park and The Beaches area could

benefit the most from the addition of hives because there is a large area of green spaces and not

enough hives. No additional hives are needed in the areas of: The Danforth, Cabbagetown, and

Niagara as there is a high density already present.

5.1.2 Proposed Locations of Foraging Areas

Community gardens were determined to be evenly distributed throughout the downtown

area but tended to decrease in frequency in the outskirts of the city. Overall, there is sufficient

amount of foraging locations for the current demands of managed honey bees population. If the

number of honey bee hives increases, as expected more foraging locations will be needed. Based

on Figure 6, there is a considerable lack of community gardens in North and East of Toronto,

adding more foraging spaces will be beneficial. The City of Toronto has been trying to increase

urban food production by expanding and installing community gardens (City of Toronto, 2009a).

However, it is not within the scope of the project to suggest potential places to add parks/green

space as it falls in the jurisdiction of Torontos zoning committee and there is a high demand for

residential areas (Pigg, 2015; City of Toronto 2009b). An alternative method to increase foraging

resource for bees is to build rooftop gardens or balcony gardens in apartment buildings (Tonietto

et al. 2011).
 Rooftop gardens can be a significant foraging source for bees even though they attract a

smaller number of bees in comparison to community garden or home gardens on the ground

(Tonietto et al. 2011). One way to combat this would to be to increase the numbers of bees on

roof top gardens by planting some native ornamentals species as it was found that honey bees

have a preference for them based on studies (Frankie et al. 2015). A potential location for roof

top garden could be in the downtown core Toronto Area as there are a lot of large commercial

skyscrapers as well as high rises (Gillis 2012). In 2014, TELUS built the first commercial

rooftop garden in Toronto which may show a developing trend and encourage other companies

in the downtown area to do the same (Canadian Architect 2014).

5.1.2.1 Benefits of Rooftop Gardens

As mentioned previously in section 2.1.3, rooftop gardens have high productivity in the

context of local food production (Orsini et al., 2014). They can also reduce rainwater runoff in

urbanized areas by 2.7% in the region and 54% for the particular building if 10% of the buildings

had green roofs (Mentens, 2006). Restaurants and supermarkets can use rooftop gardens as a part

of their business plan and food served (Cummins, 2013). These businesses can increase their

profit by marketing their food as locally grown and lowering energy costs due to the heat

absorption properties of green roofs (Sherry Cummins, 2013). The cost of rooftop gardens can be

minimized through various sources of financial assistance such as tax incentives as well as cost

rebates and grants (Trent University). This can make roof-top gardens lucrative to many (Trent

University).
5.2 REQUIRED POLLINATION CALCULATION

Given the current available land, zoning requirements, residential demand and amount of

honey bee hives currently in Toronto area, the goal of 30% not feasible. The calculations suggest

that beekeeping would have to increase by over 4000% to provide enough pollination for the

amount of cropland required to 30% produce consumed. Despite the large number of hives and

land required, with increased investment in infrastructure specifically geared towards food

production the amount of locally produced food can be significantly increased.

Moreover, the pollination capacity of native pollinators was not taken into account.

Native pollinator populations have been declining recently, requiring further reliance on

managed honey bee populations (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998). As native pollinator diversity

increases with plant diversity, this would greatly reduce the number of managed honey bee hives

necessary for crop pollination. If more space is converted to green spaces like community

gardens, more wild pollinators can be expected to frequent the Metropolitan Toronto area

(Garibaldi et al, 2011). This will reduce the number of managed honey bee hives needed for

pollination (Garibaldi et al, 2011). Furthermore, these calculations assumed that the variety of

produce consumed in Toronto was proportional to the amount of different crops grown in

Ontario. This leaves out the possibility that more pollinator dependent crop types could be grown

further reducing the number of managed honey bee hives needed.

These hives should ideally be located in and around high foraging areas where there are

rooftop gardens, community gardens and green spaces. New green space is needed, however, and

based on our calculations Toronto will need about 4855 ha to reach its 30% goal. There are many

ways this can be done some of which are mentioned in the recommendation section of this
report. Like the amount of required colonies, this 4855 ha of agricultural land may be a slight

overestimate because large-scale inner city food production is a new field of research.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 POLICY CHANGES

Before accurate recommendations can be made regarding the establishment of new hives

and green spaces, accurate locational data is required for the existing features. As such, our first

recommendation is to implement measures that will increase the percentage of registered hives in

Toronto. Currently, beekeeping in Ontario is regulated by the Ontario Bees Act (1990). This Act

was created to promote the healthy and responsible care of domestic honey bees in Toronto. It

details the necessary steps and actions that need to be taken by hive owners including annual

registration, hive inspections, selling/purchasing permits, and disease and pest reporting. The

main issue with this piece of legislation in regards to urban beekeeping is the requirement that no

hive can be placed closer than 30 meters to a property line or public area (Bees Act, 1990). This

restriction becomes problematic in dense urban areas where 30 meters is unrealistic and, in

certain areas, impossible to follow (see Figure 7). This requirement can discourage people in

urban settings to register their hives, which presents problems for efforts to map the distribution

of honey bees. OMAFRA should update this requirement to better accommodate beekeepers in

urban environments. By making realistic requirements within the Ontario Bees Act, it will

promote the registration of hives that do not currently meet the Acts standards. Additionally, we

recommend the promotion of registration through educational efforts that illustrate the benefits

of being registered such as distribution information, disease control, and a support network of all

beekeepers in the area.

A report by Berquist et al. (2012) assesses the current state of beekeeping policy within

Ontario and makes several recommendations based on this information. After reviewing the
report and additional research, it was concluded that these recommendations will be supported.

They include the following:

(1) Leave decision making to the municipality;

(2) Regulate flight path, not distance;

(3) Use voluntary best management guidelines;

(4) Cultivate communication and support networks between beekeepers;

(5) Provide free or low-cost education to beekeepers.

These recommendations serve to ameliorate the state and effectiveness of beekeeping policies in

Ontario.

Figure 7 - This image depicts a visualization of the 30 m restriction

put in place by the Ontario Bees Act (1990).

6.2 GARDENING FOR BEES

There are always ways to incorporate more bee-friendly local changes in our urban

communities to ensure a healthier environment for bees. As stated in our literature review, higher

biodiversity of plants is proven to be beneficial for pollinators. Therefore, by simply adding

different species of plants to local gardens, bee abundance and biodiversity may have a better

chance to be maintained in the city (Frankie et al., 2005). Secondly, bees have preferences for
certain flowers (UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab, 2015). Table 2, demonstrates plants that are

known to be popular among bees. Also, pollinators tend to enjoy the colours blue, purple, violet,

white and gold and have a greater preference for native plants (Pollination Guelph, 2015; Frankie

at al., 2005). Therefore, by putting a little thought into the type of plants chosen in the

community gardens and parks, the gardener can make the area more bee-friendly. This is

becoming known as "Gardening for bees" (UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab, 2015). It is

recommended to have your soil analysed for contaminants before starting a garden (Toronto

Public Health, 2013). These contaminants can be found in the Guide for Soil Testing in Urban

Gardens written by the Toronto Public Health.

In addition, ecosystem-oriented spaces such as undisturbed lots (free from mowing, soil

tillage, and application of pesticides and herbicides), and community gardens, support a

significantly higher bee diversity than traditionally managed urban landscapes, such as planted

flower beds and backyards (Tommasi et al. 2004). Thus, the garden cleanup list in the fall can be

shortened by leaving the leaves and broken branches, as well as skipping the last mow to benefit

pollinators (Pollination Guelph, 2015).

Table 2 - Plants that attract bees (Pollination Guelph, 2015).

Common Plant Species Scientific Name

Aster Aster sp.
Basil Ocimum
Beggar Ticks Bidens ferulifolia
Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia
Blanket flower Gaillardia grandiflora
Carpet geranium Geranium incanum
Caryopteris Caryopteris
Cosmos Cosmos binnatus
Cotoneaster Cotoneaster
English lavender Lavandula
Eryngo Eryngium
Giant hyssop Agastache
Globe thistle Echinops
Goldenrod Solidago
Hebe Hebe
Huckleberry Vaccinium
Hyssop Hyssopus
Joe-pye weed Eupatorium
Lupine Lupinus
Marjoram Origanum
Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium
Penstemon/Beardtongue Penstemon
Purple coneflower Echinacea
Rosemary Rosmarinus
Sage Salvia
Snowberry Symphoricarpos
Stonecrop Sedum
Sunflower Helianthus
Tickseed Coreopsis
Toadflax Linaria purpurea
Wallflower Erysimum
Wild buckwheat Eriogonum
Zinnia Zinnia
7.0 CONCLUSIONS

By synthesizing the information from the literature review conducted, the map of honey bee

hive distribution and honey bee foraging area and pollination potential calculation we can

conclude:

(4) Currently adequate foraging resources exist for current urbanized honey bee colonies in

Metropolitan Toronto, in the form of community gardens and green spaces.

(5) More hives can be added in many neighbourhoods across Toronto as there are numerous

potential foraging locations throughout the city that have not been utilized by honey bee.

(6) Based on our calculations 30% of the produce consumed by Torontonians cannot be

locally grown at this time without the use of innovative technology (such as green roofs)

and significant financial contributions.

8.0 FUTURE STEPS

(1) Combining the registered and unregistered hive locations to develop a more

comprehensive map of bee hive locations and densities.

(2) Creating a user friendly and interactive digital map to allow Toronto residents to input

their unregistered hive locations while keeping confidentiality.

(3) Investigating new technologies to increase urban agriculture.

(4) Collaborating with Beekeepers to educate the general public on honey bees to increase

number of honey bee hives and foraging locations in the city.

 WORKS CITED
Accredited Green Roof Professionals [AGRP]. (2009). Green Roof Industry Grows 16.1 per cent
in 2009 Despite Economic Downturn. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from:
http://www.greenroofs.org/resources/media_GR_Ind_Grows_16_1_Percent_2009.pdf

Allen-Wardell, G et al. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the

conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology, 12,
8-17.

Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for
health promotion and community development. Health & Place, 6, 319-327.

Baker, L. E. (2004). Trending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto's

Community Gardens. Geographical Review, 9, 305-325.

Banaszak-Cibicka, W., & mihorski, M. (2012). Wild bees along an urban gradient: Winners
and losers. Journal of Insect Conservation, 26, 331-343.

Bartomeus, I., Ascher, J.S., Wagner, D., Danforth, B.N., Colla, S., Kornbluth, S., and Winfree,
R. (2011). Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-
pollinated plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 20645-20649.

Beekman, M., Sumpter, D. J., Seraphides, N., & Ratnieks, F. L. (2004). Comparing foraging
behaviour of small and large honey-bee colonies by decoding waggle dances made by
foragers. Functional Ecology, 18, 829-835.

Bees Act, (1990) Retrieved from: Government of Ontario website:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90b06_e.htm

Berquist, M., Bird, A., Dean, M.G., Law, B.R., Lee, S., and Panesar, H. (2012). Towards a new
approach to beekeeping policy in Urban Ontario. Retrieved from:
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=1512520599000024&eid=ASsG5xU
6uEiK-WSNdLfJCaLJUP-QeOOXlzHamxm4QEM8qR9U1yTDk0-
hrVPxbOrNd2I&inline=1&ext=1427578634&hash=ASvOYgf-JyFctQ6o

Butler, C. G. (1949). Honey bee: An Introduction to Her Sense-Physiology and Behaviour.

Wirral: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Canadian Architect. (2014, June 13). TELUS unveils Toronto's first corporate urban community
garden. Retrieved from: http://www.canadianarchitect.com/news/telus-unveils-torontos-
first-corporate-urban-community-garden/1003114932/?&er=NA

City of Toronto. (2009a). One Time Investments for Increasing Urban Food Production.
Retrieved from: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-
21650.pdf
City of Toronto. (2009b). Identifying Urban Agricultural Opportunities in the City of Toronto.
Retrieved from: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-
21648.pdf

Colla, S., Willis, E., & Packer, L. (2009). Can green roofs provide habitat for urban bees
(Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Cities and Environment, 2, 1-12.

Couvillon, M., Schurch, R., & Ratnieks, F. (2014). Dancing Bees Communicate a Foraging
Preference for Rural Lands in High-Level Agri-Environment Schemes. Current Biology,
24, 1212-1215.

Cummins, S. (2013). Grow Profits Through the Roof with Urban Garden F&B! Retrieved from:
http://hospitality.cvent.com/blog/marketing-resorts-on-the-internet-2/grow-profits-
through-the-roof-with-urban-garden-fandb

Frankie, G. W., Thorp, R. W., Schindler, M., Hernandez, J., Ertter, B., & Rizzardi, M. (2005).
Ecological patterns of bees and their host ornamental flowers in two northern california
cities. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 78, 227-246.

Free, J. B. (1970). Insect pollination of crops. London: Academic Press INC.

Furst, M. A., McMahon, D. P., Osborne, J. L., Paxton, R. J., & Brown, M. J. F. (2014). Disease
associations between honey bees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature,
506, 364-375.

Garibaldi, L. A. et al. (2011). Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from
natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters, 14, 1062-1072.

Genersch, E. (2010). Honey bee pathology: Current threats to honey bees and
beekeeping. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 87, 87-97.

Gillis, W. (2012, October 26) Density Toronto: Why the skyscrapers on steroids?. The Star.
Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/26/density_toronto_why_the_skyscrapers_on_
steroids.html

Girling, R., Lusebrink, I., Farthing, E., Newman, T., & Poppy, G. (2013). Diesel exhaust rapidly
degrades floral odours used by honey bees. Scientific Reports, 3, 1-5.

Gisder, S., Hedtke, K., Mockel, N., Frielitz, M., Linde, A., & Genersch, E. (2010). Five-Year
Cohort Study Of Nosema Spp. In Germany: Does Climate Shape Virulence And
Assertiveness Of Nosema Ceranae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76, 3032-
3038.
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling Up From Gardens: Biodiversity
Conservation In Urban Environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 90-98.

Hails, R. S., Ball, B.V., & Genersch, E. (2008). Virology and the Honey Bee. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/pdf/virology_and_the_honey_bee.pdf

Hennig, E. I., & Ghazoul, J. (2011). Plantpollinator interactions within the urban
environment. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 13, 137-150.

Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J.-F., Aupinel, P., Decourtye, A. (2012).
A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science,
336, 348-350.

Herrod-Hempsall, W. (1943). The anatomy, physiology and natural history of the honey bee.
London: British Bee Journal.

Howse, P. (1982). Brain and Behaviour in bees. In Honey bee Biology. Central Association of
Bee Keepers.

James, R. R., & Pitts-Singer, T. L. (Eds.). (2008). Bee pollination in agricultural ecosystems.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Klein, A. M., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen,
C., & Tscharntke, T. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world
crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 303-313.

Kremen, C. et al. (2007). Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile
organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters,
10, 299-314.

Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., & Thorp, R. W. (2002). Crop pollination from native bees at risk
from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99,
16812-16816.

Ksiazek, K., Fant, J., & Skogen, K. (2012). An assessment of pollen limitation on Chicago green
roofs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 107: 401-408.

Lowenstein, D., Matteson, K., Xiao, I., Silva, A., & Minor, E. (2014). Humans, bees, and
pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodiversity And
Conservation, 23, 2857-2874.

McFrederick, Q. S., & LeBuhn, G. (2006). Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus
spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)?. Biological Conservation, 129, 372-382.
Mentens, J., Raes, D., & Hermy, M. (2006). Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater
runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century?. Landscape and urban planning, 77(3),
217-226.

Naug, D. (2009). Nutritional stress due to habitat loss may explain recent honey bee colony
collapses. Biological Conservation, 142, 2369-2372.

Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual,
community, and environmental resilience. American journal of community psychology,
47, 374-387.

Ontario Basic Mapping (OBM). (2015). Retrieved 13 March 2015, Retrieved from:
http://www.geographynetwork.ca/website/obm/viewer.htm

Ontario Beekeepers Association (2014). Pollination Services. Retrieved from:

http://www.ontariobee.com/sales-and-services/pollination-services

Ontario Government. (2015). Pollinator Health. Retrieved 30 March 2015, from:

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/pollinator-health
Ontario Local Food Act. (2013 C.7). Retrieved from: Legislative Assembly of Ontario website:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2754

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rurual Affairs. (2012). Overview of Beekeeping
Regulations in Ontario: What you should know if you own honey bees. Retrieved from:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/food/inspection/bees/beekeepingregulations.pdf

Orsini, F. et al. (2014). Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban
agriculture: The potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other
ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food Security, 6, 781-792.

Pawelek, J., Frankie, G., Thorp, R. and Przybylski, M. 2009. Modification of a Community
Garden to Attract Native Bee Pollinators in Urban San Luis Obispo, California. Cities
and the Environment, 2, 1-20.

Pigg, S. (2015, February 27). Ontario farmland under threat as demand for housing grows. The
Star. Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/02/27/ontario-farmland-
under-threat-as-demand-for-housing-grows.html
Pollination Guelph. (2015). Our Downloads. Retrieved from:
http://www.pollinationguelph.ca/#!downloads/c1c9n
Port, C. M., & Moos, M. (2014). Growing Food in the Suburbs: Estimating the Land Potential
for Sub-urban Agriculture in Waterloo, Ontario. Planning Practice and Research, 29,
152-170.

UC Berkeley Urban Bee Lab. (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.helpabee.org/

Reeves, J., Cheng, Z., Kovach, J., Kleinhenz, M., & Grewal, P. (2014). Quantifying soil health
and tomato crop productivity in urban community and market gardens. Urban
Ecosystems, 17, 221-238.
Riffel, J.A. et al (2014). Flower discrimination by pollinators in a dynamic chemical
environment. Science, 334, 1515-1518.

Seeley, T. (2010). Honey bee Democracy. Princeton University Press.

Shevory, K. (2010, December 8). The Beekeeper Next Door. The New York Times. Retrieved
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/garden/09Bees.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

SfP Working Group. (2012). City of Toronto Portlands Sustainability District. [PowerPoint
slides].

Snodgrass, R. (1956). Anatomy of the Honey Bee. Ithaca, US: Cornell University Press.

Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Kuhn, A. (2003). Honey bee foraging in differentially structured
landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 569-575.

Statistics Canada. (2012). Census Profile 2011 (Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE). Ottawa. ON.
Retrieved from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed February 25, 2015).

Tapparo, A., Giorio, C., Sold, L., Bogialli, S., Marton, D., Marzaro, M., & Girolami, V. (2012).
UHPLC-DAD method for the determination of neonicotinoid insecticides in single bees
and its relevance in honey bee colony loss investigations. Analytical And Bioanalytical
Chemistry, 405, 1007-1014.
Tarpy, D. (n.d.). The Honey Bee Dance Language. Retrieved from:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/1.11 copy.pdf

Tommasi, D., Miro, A., Higo, H., & Winston, M. (2004). Bee diversity and abundance in an
urban setting. The Canadian Entomologist, 136, 851-869.

Tonietto, R., Fant, J., Ascher, J., Ellis, K., & Larkin, D. (2011). A comparison of bee
communities of chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landscape and Urban Planning,
103, 102-108.

Toronto Community Garden Network [TCGN]. (2014). Community Gardens in Toronto and the
GTA. Retrieved from: http://www.tcgn.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=TorontoGardens.FrontPage

Toronto Food Policy Council. (1999). Feeding the City from the Back40: A Commercial Food
Production Plan for the City of Toronto. Retrieved from:
http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_public_health/healthy_families/nutrition
toronto_food_policy_council/files/pdf/tfpc_feeding.pdf
Toronto Public Health. (2015). Soil Assessment Guide for New City Allotment and Community
Gardens - Summary. Retrieved from:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-37686.pdf
Trent University. (n.d). Rooftop Gardens. Retrieved from:
https://www.trentu.ca/eab/documents/Rooftop_Gardens-Zipple.pdf

Tsilini, V., Papantoniou, S., Kolokotsa, D. D., & Maria, E. A. (2014). Urban gardens as a
solution to energy poverty and urban heat island. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 323-
333.

University of Toronto Map and Data Library. (2015).CanMap Streetfiles Toronto 7.2. Retrieved
from: http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/cgi-
bin/files.pl?idnum=199&title=CanMap+Streetfiles+Toronto+7.2

Vanbergen, A. (2013). Threats to an ecosystem service: Pressures on pollinators. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment, 11, 251-259.

VanEngelsdorp, D., & Meixner, M. D. (2010). A historical review of managed honey bee
populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. Journal
of invertebrate pathology, 103, 80-95.
 APPENDIX A

Figure 8 - Street map of Metropolitan Toronto to discern locations of beehives in reference to Figure 2.