Issuu on Google+

The Buzz on Bees: a comparison of pollination systems using cost-beenefit analysis

Clara Payro, Courtney Ayukawa, Maggie Cascadden GEOG 460: Research in Sustainability Due Friday, December 13th, 2013 Professor Brian E. Robinson


1. Abstract Pollinators, including bees, are crucial to the production of many fruits and vegetables. However, bee populations have been starkly declining, a phenomenon termed colony collapse disorder (CCD). While the exact cause of CCD has not yet been identified, there is a general consensus in the academic community that increased knowledge about bees’ importance as pollinators is needed. This study quantifies the value of current and potential pollination systems in the Macdonald Campus region, using the value of these pollination schemes to the Horticultural Centre’s production of watermelon as a proxy. A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and pollination valuation using the production value method (Winfree et al. 2011) are tools used in the analysis of five situations: mixed pollination, which is the current situation in this system; only wild pollination; no pollination, which will be used as the baseline scenario; hand pollination; and rented pollination. We determine the mixed pollination scenario to be the most economical, with a net profit value of $9,461. By ascribing a monetary value to the ecosystem service of bee pollination, we hope to increase legibility and understanding of the value of pollinators. 2. Introduction Pollination is defined as the process of transferring pollen, which contains the genetic material of flowers, from the stamen, male part of the plant, to the stigma, the female part of the plant. Pollinators, such as bees, eat nectar or pollen, and through this foraging behaviour move pollen from flower to flower. Pollination is necessary for plant fertilization and is a required step before fertile seeds can spread and next season’s plants can grow. The facilitation of plant fertilization by animals, in this case bees, is a key ecosystem service and is the definition of pollination services used in this study. The pollination service that the honey bee, or Apis mellifera, does for the world economy is valued at over $200 billion dollars (Gallai et al., 2007). Most fruits and vegetables require pollinators in order to be pollinated efficiently; without pollinators, the human diet would be limited (Lebuhn et al, 2013; see Figure 1). Pollinators, furthermore, can improve yields, thereby increasing profit for farmers. In places with a higher index of pollinator abundance and variability, crop pollination was nearly maximized, thereby maximizing yield (Moradin & Winston, 2006). Figure 1. Photoshopped image of a grocery store with and without produce which rely on pollinators by Whole Foods Unfortunately, the combination of pesticides, land use change, and Varroa destructor have led to the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) phenomenon, characterized by bee disappearances that leave the colony with too few members to function (Guzman-Novoa et al,


2010; Kremen et al, 2007; Lebuhn et al, 2013; Moradin & Winston, 2006; Partap & Ya, 2012; Russell et al, 2013). Furthermore, climate change has affected pollinators’ ability to pollinate crop (Partap & Ya, 2013). Canadian beekeepers have lost over thirty percent of their bees in recent winters, which is an above-normal loss (Guzman-Novoa et al., 2010; Kevan et al, 2007). Worldwide, there are areas that have seen higher rates of bee losses and, in some places, animal pollinators have completely disappeared (Partap et Ya, 2012; Kevan et al, 2007; Kremen et al, 2007; Lebuhn et al, 2013). As an alternative, farmers are renting beehives or pollinating by hand, which are less efficient than wild pollinators (Benjamin & McCallum, 2009). Hand pollination is especially costly and economically unsustainable. (Partap & Ya, 2013; Allsopp et al, 2008). If pollinators disappeared in just two American states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, using human labour to pollinate watermelons would cost an estimated $1.38 million dollars per year (Winfree et al., 2011). Pollinators, thereby, provide a valuable ecosystem service that would be expensive to replace. The literature points out that lack of knowledge is an issue for bee conservation (Partap & Ya, 2013) and, in order to better understand the economic importance of bees, specific information about how animal pollination helps crops at the field level is necessary (Kremen et al, 2007). With increased understanding of the economic contribution of pollinators, incentives protect these valuable creatures will increase. In this study we investigate the value of domestic pollinators within the Macdonald Campus region in the Horticultural Centre’s production of watermelon? Research focused on the Horticultural Centre located at McGill’s MacDonald Campus and apiaries within a 4km radius of the Horticultural Centre. We chose McGill Universities’ facilities as the focus of our research because, as an academic institution, McGill University tends to promote and support research like ours, and thus data can be easily accessed. Our study was readily welcomed by the President of the McGill Apicultural Association (MAA), Evan Henry, and Manager of the Horticultural Centre, Mike Bleho. The research focused on watermelon crops produced at the Horticultural Centre of McGill University as a proxy for the benefits pollination for agriculture. In 2001, watermelon was the fifth most consumed fresh fruit, and the most consumed melon-type fruit in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2002), and exports of melon crops and papaya, including watermelon, equated to nearly $3.6 million dollars in 2010 (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2011). Physiologically, watermelon relies on animal pollinators for pollination, as it has two separate flowers, one male and one female, and is thus unable to self-pollinate (Winfree et al., 2011). It is therefore appropriate to study pollinator's contribution to watermelon yields, as these fruits are highly consumed, valuable, and depend on pollinators. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) approach and Winfree et al.’s (2011) production value method pollination valuation equation were used in this study as tools for understanding the value of pollination in watermelon production over an average year. A CBA was conducted for five situations: no pollination, only wild pollination, mixed pollination (wild and local domestic), rented pollinators, and hand pollination. The CBA allows easier comparisons between pollination and other economic activities, as it puts the ecosystem service into monetary terms. Abstract values may be difficult to understand, so putting pollination into monetary terms makes its value more accessible for a broader range of people, and helps increase understanding on how pollination contributes to the economy. Hopefully pollinators will become more appreciated, and halting bee decline will become all communities’ goal.


3. Methods 3A. Spatiality As previously mentioned, the spatiality of the study is a 4km radius around the Macdonald Horticultural Centre. This 4km radius is derived from the average foraging distance, or how far a bee will travel from his hive while foraging for food (Beekman and Ratnieks, 2000; Osborne et al., 1999). Figure 2 depicts this with the Horticultural Centre as the middle white pin, and the Macdonald Campus as the red pin alongside the Horticultural Centre. Figure 2. Spatiality of research; area within 4km of the Horticultural Centre 3B. Temporality Our study determines pollination values for the Horticultural Centre in an average year’s watermelon production through considering the benefits and costs associated with watermelon production and pollination services over one year. 3C. Counterfactual Situations To conduct the research, five different situations – the current situation and four counterfactuals – were analysed. A cost-benefit analysis was performed in each of the counterfactuals to allow us to compare the situations between each other.

Figure3.1: Current Situation: Mixed Pollination The figure above shows the “Mixed Pollination” situation. The watermelon crop at the Horticultural Centre is pollinated by both domestic and wild pollinators. Domestic pollinators are bees from the McGill Apicultural Association (MAA) and from other hives that are present within 4km of the Horticultural Centre. We used to the data from the Winfree et al (2011) article to approximate the proportion of pollination from domestic pollinators to wild pollinators. According to their results, wild


pollination accounts for 62% and domestic pollination accounts for 38% of the total pollination. (Winfree et al, 2011)

Figure 3.2: Counterfactual A (Wild Pollinators) This situation analyses pollination services provided if the system contained only the wild pollinators, and there were no domestic pollinators present in the area. Pollination in this scenario is, thus, only done by wild pollinators. It is assumed that the ability of wild pollinators to pollinate is independent of the presence of domestic pollinators, so the amount of pollination attributable to wild pollinators is 62% of the total pollination from the Mixed Pollinators scenario (Winfree et al, 2011).

Figure 3.3 Counterfactual B (No pollination) The above situation looks at what would happen if no wild or domestic pollinators were present. This counterfactual is considered to be the baseline scenario, as there is no pollination and, thus, the value of pollination is zero in this system. The other scenarios will be compared to this counterfactual, and the value difference will be the value of the factors that are different in the other scenario.


Figure 3.4 Counterfactual C (Hand pollination) In the above situation, we looked at what would happen if no pollinators were present and human labour was used to hand-pollinate watermelon crop. To hand pollinate watermelon, one cuts a male flower and rubs it on the female flower (Concordia Greenhouse, personal communication). This counterfactual is unrealistic for the Horticultural Centre, because wild pollinators forage there, and this scenario assumes no wild pollinators are present. It was included because it is a technique employed in parts of the world where local foragers have disappeared (Partap & Ya, 2012; Allsopp et al, 2008).

Figure 3.5 Counterfactual D (Pollination from rented hives) Counterfactual D represents a system where no wild or local domestic pollinators are present, and pollinators from rented hives were brought in to pollinate watermelon crop. Although it is not a realistic scenario for the Horticultural Centre, because wild pollinators are present and this scenario assumes they are not, this counterfactual is explored because this system is employed in other situations, like in large monocrops of plants that require pollination (Benjamin & McCallum, 2009). 3D. Cost Benefit Analysis To assess the pollination value, a cost benefit analysis was conducted for each of the five counterfactual scenarios. A cost benefit analysis outlines the costs and benefits of a proposed project or scenario, with the output being a net profit or cost of that scenario for a given time frame (Schmidtz, 2001). In this project, a cost benefit analysis was done for the five scenarios listed above. Using this framework, the net profit derived from each scenario is calculated. Both costs and benefits were included in the scenario. 3Da. Primary Benefits


The one primary benefit in these scenarios was the value of produced watermelon (see Figure 6). This benefit was calculated using the price of watermelon at the Horticultural Centre’s market multiplied by the yield of the watermelon, which assumed to be the quantity sold. At the Horticultural Centre, seedless watermelons are valued at $5.50 CAN, while seeded watermelons sell for $4.50 CAN (Bleho, personal communication). Watermelon yield was calculated using the number of watermelon plants at the Horticultural Centre multiplied by the average yield of each watermelon plant. The Horticultural Centre dedicates 120m of planting row to growing watermelon. Watermelon plants are spaced .9m apart, and each produces an average of 1.5 watermelons (Bleho, personal communication). Using this information, the estimated total watermelon yield is 2000 melons, of which 1600 are seedless and 400 are seeded. In the mixed pollinators, hand pollination, and renting pollinators scenarios, it was assumed that maximum yield was achieved. In the wild pollinator scenario, however, it was assumed that yield was reduced to the same proportion of which wild pollinators contribute to pollination in the mixed pollinators scenario, 62% (Winfree et al, 2011). In the no pollinator scenario, yield was assumed to be zero, as the physiology of the watermelon plant makes it unable to self-pollinate (Winfree et al, 2011). 3Db. Primary Costs There were five primary costs accounted for in the cost benefit analysis (see Figure 6). Two costs were directly associated with the functioning of the apiary: apiary maintenance and apiary labour. Apiary maintenance includes the cost of the MacDonald Campus Apiary, namely the cost of equipment, such as frames, boxes, foundation, etc.. Apiary labour is the cost to hire someone at minimum wage to maintain an apiary. In reality, the MacDonald Campus Apiary is maintained by volunteers. To calculate the cost of hiring labour, the logged hours of a summer intern were used. During the internship, the intern worked an average of twenty hours a week for sixteen weeks, totalling 320 total hours of labour throughout the working months of the apiary. Minimum wage in Quebec is $10.15 CAN/hour (Commission des normes du travail du Quebec, 2013), and this wage was applied to the hours worked to calculate the total labour costs of the apiary. These costs apply to the entire apiary, whose pollination services benefit more than just the watermelon growing at the Horticultural Centre, so it was necessary to scale the costs to only what could be attributable to watermelon. In order to do this, the number of hives to rent per acre recommended by the Canadian Honey Council was used; nine hives for every two hectares of area to be pollinated (Canadian Honey Council, 2013). Since the watermelon covers 0.5 hectares, 2.25 hives are recommended. In a renting scenario, however, it is assumed that there are no wild pollinators present, which is not the case in the mixed pollinator scenario: only 38% of pollination is done by domestic pollinators in this system (Winfree et al, 2013). The needed number of hives is, therefore, 38% of 2.25 hives recommended by the Canadian Honey Council, or 0.86 hives total. During this past summer, there were 14 hives at the MacDonald campus apiary (Henry, personal communication), so the costs of the MacDonald Campus Apiary were multiplied by 0.855/14. In addition to apiary associated costs, there were three other primary costs included into the cost benefit analysis. Two of these costs were associated with watermelon. The first, farm labour, was the cost associated with hiring people to plant, fertilize, and harvest the watermelons. This cost was calculated using estimates of the required time for these tasks, as this research was started after these activities had been completed for the season. We estimated the total cost of


labour to be 60 hours paid at minimum wage in Quebec, $10.15 CAN/hour. The labour cost associated with harvesting, however, is dependant on yield. Therefore, the cost of harvesting was at a maximum of 20 hours paid at minimum wage for the three scenarios where maximum yield was achieved: the mixed pollinators scenario, the hand pollination scenario and the renting scenario. For the other two scenarios, there was reduced yield, and the harvesting cost was resultantly reduced to 62% and 0% of the original labour costs for the wild pollinators and no pollinators scenarios, respectively. The final primary cost in the cost benefit analysis was hand pollination labour. This cost only applies to the hand pollinator and rented pollinator scenarios. In the hand pollination scenario, the cost of pollination service was calculated using the estimated time it takes to hand pollinate (Concordia Greenhouse, personal communication). In the renting pollinators scenario, the cost of renting a hive and recommended number of hives per hectare was used to calculate the pollination labour costs. Since 2.25 hives need to be rented, the cost per hive is $ 120 CAN (Canadian Honey Council, 2013). In both scenarios, it was assumed that there were no wild pollinators present. 3Dc. Secondary Costs & Benefits In addition to having the costs and benefits outlined above, the apicultural centre (MAA) also had secondary costs and benefits associated with it (see Figure 9). The benefits include apicultural products, such as honey or honey products (eg. beeswax and candles), and education. The values of these benefits were included in the total revenue of the apiary, found in the apiary’s budget (Henry, personal communication). Secondary costs include the extractor, jar, and lid costs, which were also included in the apiary’s yearly budget (Henry, personal communication). These costs and benefits were scaled down to what can be attributable to watermelon using the same methodology described in 4Db. 3E. Value of Pollination Equation After doing a cost benefit analysis, the value of pollination services was calculated using the production value method outlined in Winfree et al (2011) (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Value of Pollination Equation P is the price of the agricultural product, in this case watermelon. Y is the yield of that product. C are the costs associated with that product, which vary with yield and pollination services provision. D is 1- the amount of pollination that would be done without pollinators; in the case of watermelon, this number is zero, so D = 1. r is the proportion of pollination done by the specific pollinator, for example, the wild pollinators or the apiary pollinators. 3F. Valuation of Systems Once the value of pollination was determined using the Production Value Method’s Value of Pollination Equation (Figure 4), the scenarios were compared to the baseline and valued (see Figure 8). As the no pollinators scenario is the baseline, all other scenarios were compared


to the net value of pollination associated with a pollinator in this system. The results were the net value of using the compared system for pollination. In addition, since the mixed pollinators and wild pollinators scenarios are comparable systems, these two counterfactuals were compared with the wild pollinators scenario as the baseline. The result of this comparison is the value of having domestic pollinators in the MacDonald Campus area.

Figure 5. Valuation of Systems Equation 4. Results Using the cost benefit analysis techniques, the total net profit of each scenario was calculated (see Figure 6). Overall, both the renting and mixed pollination scenarios proved to be the most economical, valuing in at a net profit of $9,416 CAN and $9,461 CAN, respectively. Hand pollination, then wild pollination, were valued at $8,205 CAN and $5,785 CAN respectively, making them the third and fourth most economical. The no pollinators counterfactual was not financially sustainable, with a net cost of -$710 CAN associated with this system. The value of pollination in each of the scenarios was determined based on the production value method, using the equation in Figure 4. Since there is no pollination in the no pollinators scenario, the r value is 0, making the value of pollination 0 in this scenario. The costs in this scenario were, therefore, not associated with pollinators. This cost was included in all scenarios, but in all other counterfactuals it was outweighed by the benefit of watermelon production. In the four profitable situations, the value of each present pollinator was determined using the value of pollination equation (see Figure 4). For the wild pollinators, hand pollinators, and renting scenarios, the value of the pollination done by wild foragers, human labour, and rented domestic bees, respectively, was equal to the total net profit of that scenario, as r = 1 for the respective pollinator in each of those scenarios. In the mixed pollinators scenario, however, there were two pollinators: domestic pollinators, which had an r value of 0.38; and wild pollinators, which had an r value of 0.62.The results of the pollination valuation are displayed in Figure 7.


Figure 6. Value of Pollination: Table of Costs and Benefits by Scenario

Figure 7. Graph of Net Value of Pollination (Vpollination) 4A. Secondary Benefits In the above analysis, the renting and mixed pollination scenarios were found to be nearly equally valuable. However, as mentioned above, there are secondary costs and benefits associated with the mixed pollinator scenario that are not present in the renting pollinators scenario, nor associated with pollination services. These are, however, costs and benefits to the system as a whole, and make the mixed pollinators scenario even more valuable than previously calculated. These came out to a total net benefit of $145 CAN (see Figure 9).


Figure 9. Graph of Net Value of Pollination Including Secondary Benefits 4B. Valuation In order to value the different systems, The net value of pollination associated with pollinators in each system was compared to the no pollinators baseline scenario. In the no pollinators scenario, the net value of pollination associated with pollinators is 0 despite a net cost as the r value is zero in this counterfactual (see Figure 7). The annual values of the systems of pollination assessed in this study were found to be equal to their net profit (see Figure 8). To find the value of the domestic pollinators surrounding MacDonald Campus, the wild pollinators scenario was used as a baseline and was compared to the Mixed Pollinators scenario. Through this computation, the annual value of local, domestic pollinators, such as those at the MacDonald Campus Apiary, was found to be $3,676 CAN (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Table of Valuations


5. Discussion Overall, the mixed pollinators and renting pollinators were the most economically profitable scenarios. The wild pollinators and hand pollinators scenarios were also found to be economically viable. Contrastingly, the no pollinators scenario proved to be financially unsustainable. When secondary benefits were included in the cost benefit analysis, it became increasingly obvious that the mixed pollinators scenario was most beneficial overall. Furthermore, although the renting scenario seems to be profitable, this scenario is unrealistic in practice. It assumes that there are no wild pollinators, which is not true at the Horticultural Centre. In reality, renting hives is only done for large monocultures where there are no natural pollinators available to pollinate (Benjamin & McCallum, 2009). The hand pollination scenario is unrealistic for the same reason. These systems were considered for the cost benefit analysis because they are systems in practice elsewhere (Allsopp et al, 2008; Partap & Ya, 2013; Benjamin & McCallum, 2009). At the current time, however, they are inappropriate for the MacDonald Campus region. It is still valuable to look at these scenarios, as they represent the replacement value, and their lower net profit indicates there is value in having domestic and wild pollinators. 5A. Possible Sources of Error An important assumption in the calculations is the efficacy of rented hives and hand pollination being the same as wild and domestic pollinators. Currently, little data exists on this topic. However, there is logical speculation that the rented bees are not as effective as wild and domestic pollinators already in the region (Benjamin & McCallum, 2009). This is based on the toll which traveling takes on the bees and the typically industrial monoculture fields which rented bees forage on. These monoculture fields reduce diversity in the bees’ diet, which reduces their health. In addition, they are often exposed to high concentrations of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, which may also affect the bees’ health. (Henry, personal communication; Oldroyd, 2007) For hand pollination, it seems that efficacy may depend on the pollination method used. The method of cutting the male flower and rubbing it on the female was based on the method used at the Concordia Greenhouse and parallels the method discussed by Allsopp et al (2008). This method’s efficacy, however, depends on the type of plant. Unfortunately, watermelons and other Cucurbitaceae were not studied by Allsopp et al. (2008) and the Concordia Greenhouse Collective lacked precise data on the effectiveness of their method. The main constraining factor in our research is the lack of Montreal data, which led to a reliance on secondary sources and approximations. “Valuing Pollination Services to Agriculture” by Winfree et al. (2011) was essential to our research, as we used their ratio of wild to domestic pollination for our CBA. This reliance on the Winfree et al. (2011) article may be a source of error because that research was conducted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. However, this climate was most similar to that of Montreal out of all studies in our literature review, and Winfree et al. (2011) studied the honey bee as pollinators instead of other bee species, which we also studied in this research. Hence, although this is a possible source of error, we believe the data from the Winfree et al. (2011) article was the best available for use in our study. Since this research was conducted in the fall and winter seasons, the watermelon being studied had already been harvested at the Horticultural Centre. For this reason, the costs associated with hand pollination were approximations based off of information from the Concordia Greenhouse Collective and the Horticultural Centre. We applied the data on hand


pollination of Cucurbitaceae from the Concordia Greenhouse Collective to the growing situation at the Horticultural Centre from Mike Bleho, the Manager of the Centre. Harvesting costs were also approximated with information from Mr. Bleho. Ideally, this research would be conducted in the summer while the watermelon are growing to practice hand pollination and observe harvesting ourselves. With the above limitations in mind, we feel that the results and conclusions reached through this study are as accurate and precise as possible. 5B. Importance of Findings There is currently a lack of knowledge about the value of pollination. This research is therefore important, as it puts a monetary value on bee pollination services. By quantifying the economic value of bees as pollinators, the research makes the value of pollination less abstract and easier to grasp for the general public. Our goal is to increase awareness about how valuable pollinators are and, to do so, our findings must be accessible. Since many understand monetary and economic value, we believe that our findings are largely accessible and can therefore generate a better appreciation for pollination services. This research is also important as it demonstrates that pollinators are valuable and vital to our society. This research will contribute to the increasing amount of literature on bees as pollinators. It also aims to trigger actions and policies that would aim at protecting pollinators and educating people about their value. Finally, our findings should help the MAA to obtain more support from McGill University, other institutions, and funding sources. This research demonstrated that the MAA contributes positively to the Horticultural Centre, which itself contributes greatly to McGill University. For example, according to the McGill Food and Dining Services website (2012), the Horticultural Centre is indeed an important local food supplier of the McGill cafeterias. 5C. Next Steps for Research We understand this research can lack some precision for the reasons mentioned above. To further extend our research, one could evaluate the value of pollination services at the Macdonald region for any kind of crop which relies on bee pollination, instead of just watermelon. Species of fruits and vegetables have different blooming periods, rates of reproduction, etc. Thus, the way these species benefit from pollination might be different. Knowing the value of pollination for every vegetable and fruit species at the Horticultural Centre would give greater context to our findings. Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare the value of pollination between different regions. As mentioned earlier, bees and pollination can be affected by different factors such as climate, habitation loss, fertilizer/pesticide use, etc. Since regions vary, the pollination services in these areas vary as well. Comparing different regions would allow a better approximation of the value of pollination worldwide, rather than in a specific region. Pollination is beneficial, but its value might greatly differ from region to region. Finally, another way to extend the research would be to measure efficacy of the different scenarios or counterfactuals explored in this study. As discussed above, we believe that there are differences in pollination efficacy between the different scenarios, but this was not included as a factor in this research. To have a more precise value of pollination among the different counterfactuals, we need to know how efficient hand pollination and rented pollination are compared to bee pollination. The same applies to the differences in efficacy between domestic


and wild pollinators. This niche of bee research is a new field; we found the published research on the topic to be lacking. These steps could further extend our research and make it more precise. 6. Conclusion This study used the production value technique, as outlined by Winfree et al. (2011), to determine the production value of current and alternative pollination services in the Macdonald Campus region in the Horticultural Centre’s watermelon production. The current, mixed pollinators, scenario proved to be the most economically valuable, especially when secondary costs and benefits were included, follow closely by the renting pollinators scenario. Both the renting pollinators and hand pollinators scenarios, however, are unrealistic for this system currently, as they assume that there are no natural foragers in the area. A baseline comparison was also employed to determine the value of domestic pollinators in the region. Through this, the value of domestic pollinators surrounding MacDonald campus was quantified. This study hopes to have contributed to an understanding of bees and other pollinators importance. It is through knowledge of pollinators’ value that they will be appreciated and, hopefully, saved. With threats such as CCD and climate change imminent, our growing human population needs to focus on preserving the ecosystem services on which our livelihoods, health, and economies rely. The aim of this research was to add understanding to the importance of these ecosystem services to our economy through understanding the financial benefits of pollination. 7. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following individuals who contributed and participated in this research: our supervisor Professor Brian E. Robinson for the valuable assistance, comments and advice throughout the entire research process; Evan Henry for the infinite help and information about the McGill Apicultural Association and simply for passing on to us his love of bees; Mike Bleho for his help and knowledge of the Horticultural Centre; The Concordia Greenhouse for their help on valuing hand pollination; and all the students registered in GEOG 460 this semester for their input, enthusiasm, and interest.

8. Research Team Clara Payró is a U2 student in the Sustainability, Science and Society (SSS) interfaculty program at McGill University, minoring in East Asian Language and Literature. She is the vicepresident internal of the SSS student association for the 2013-2014 school year. She has worked for several NGOs including “Ingénieurs du Monde” as a permanent delegate at the United Nations in Geneva. She also co-founded a student-run and fund-raising association “Students for Hope Geneva” that aims at engaging students in development issues such as sustainability.


Courtney Ayukawa is a U3 student in the Sustainability, Science, and Society interfaculty program at McGill University. She is active in campus politics and sits on the Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) Council, as well as the Environment committee of the Council. Since May 2013, Courtney has been coordinating The ECOLE Project, which will be launched in September 2014 as a model for sustainable living and a hub of the McGill/Montreal sustainability communities. Through working on ECOLE, Courtney has connected with the McGill Apicultural Association (MAA) at McGill’s Macdonald campus. She is also completing an independent study on living learning communities as a teaching/learning model for sustainability. Maggie Cascadden is a U3 honours student in the Sustainability, Science and Society interfaculty program at McGill University. She has been involved in a number of environmental groups on campus, including the David Suzuki Foundation @ McGill, CKUT’s Ecolibrium radio show and Greening McGill. She currently sits on the executive of The Plate Club, is VP Academic for the Student Association of Sustainability, Science and Society, and is the Green Expectations Chairwoman for the Kappa Phi chapter of Alpha Omicron Pi. In addition, Maggie has been working at the Montreal Biosphere since April 2013, and has taken computer modelling, GIS and statistics classes. She hopes to use these computer and communication skills to study and promote sustainability. 9. References 9A. Literature Cited Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2011). Canadian Fruit. Allsopp, M.H., Lange, W.J.D., Veldtman, R. (2008). Valuing insect pollination services with cost of replacement. PloS One 3 (9). Beekman, M., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2000). Long-range foraging by the honey-bee, Apis mellifera L. . Functional Ecology, 14, 490-496. Benjamin, A., & McCallum, B. (2009). A World Without Bees: Pegasus Books. Canadian Honey Council (2013). Managing Bees for Pollination. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.honeycouncil.ca/managing_bees_for_pollination.php Commission des normes du travail du Quebec (2013). Wages. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/wages-pay-and-work/wages Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J., & Vaissière, B. E. (2009a). Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 810–821. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014 Guzman-Novoa, E., Eccles, L., Calvete, Y., McGowan, J., Kelly, P. G., & Correa-Benitez, A. (2010). Varroa destructor is the main culprit for the death and reduced populations of overwintered honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in Ontario , Canada. Apidology, 41, 443– 450. Kevan, P., Guzman, E., Skinner, A., & van Englesdorp, D. (2007). Kevan et al 2007 hivelights.pdf. HiveLights, 14–16. Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Aizen, M. a, Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., … Ricketts, T. H. (2007). Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology letters, 10(4), 299–314. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x


Lebuhn, G., Droege, S., Connor, E. F., Gemmill-Herren, B., Potts, S. G., Minckley, R. L., … Parker, F. (2013, February). Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales. Conservation biology  : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01962.x McGill Food and Dining Services (2012). Ethical Sourcing. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from https://www.mcgill.ca/foodservices/responsible-food/green Morandin, L. a., & Winston, M. L. (2006). Pollinators provide economic incentive to preserve natural land in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 116(3-4), 289292. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.012 Osborne, J. L., Clark, S. J., Morris, R. J., Williams, I. H., Riley, R. J., Smith, A. D., et al. (1999). A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 519-533. Oldroyd, B. P. (2007). What's killing American honey bees? PLoS Biol, 5(6). Partap, U., & Ya, T. (2012). The Human Pollinators of Fruit Crops in Maoxian County, Sichuan, China. Mountain Research and Development, 32(2), 176–186. doi:10.1659/MRDJOURNAL-D-11-00108.1 Russell, S., Barron, A. B., & Harris, D. (2013). Dynamic modelling of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony growth and failure. Ecological Modelling, 265, 158–169. Schmidtz, D. (2001). A place for cost-benefit analysis. Philisophical Issues, 11, 148-171. Statistics Canada. (2002). Food Consumption in Canada Consommation des aliments au Canada. Winfree, R., Gross, B. J., & Kremen, C. (2011). Valuing pollination services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 71, 80–88. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.001 9B. Literature Reviewed but not Cited Breeze, T. D., Bailey, a. P., Balcombe, K. G., & Potts, S. G. (2011). Pollination services in the UK: How important are honeybees? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 142(34),137–143. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.020 Brittain, C., Kremen, C., & Klein, A.-M. (2013). Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Global change biology, 19(2), 540–7. doi:10.1111/gcb.12043 Brittain, C., & Potts, S. G. (2011). The potential impacts of insecticides on the life-history traits of bees and the consequences for pollination. Basic and Applied Ecology, 12(4), 321– 331. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2010.12.004 Calderone, N. W. (2012). Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992-2009. PloS one, 7(5), e37235. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235 Colla, S. R., Gadallah, F., Richardson, L., Wagner, D., & Gall, L. (2012). Assessing declines of North American bumble bees (Bombus spp.) using museum specimens. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(14), 3585–3595. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0383-2 Inouye, D. W. (2007). The value of bees. Biological Conservation, 140(3-4), 198–199. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.011 Naug, D. (2009). Nutritional stress due to habitat loss may explain recent honeybee colony collapses. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2369–2372. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.007


Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E. (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25(6), 345–53. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 Ricketts, T. H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. a, Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., … Viana, B. F. (2008). Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology letters, 11(5), 499–515. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x Sagoff, M. (2011). The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 70(3), 497–502. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.006 Schulp, C. J. E., Lautenbach, S., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators, 36, 131–141. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014 Settele, J., & Vaissiere, B. (2008). Economic value of insect pollination worldwide estimated at 153 billion euros (Vol. 3, pp. 5–7). Southwickl, E. E. (1992). Estimating the Economic Value of Honey Bees ( Hymenoptera  : Apidae ) as Agricultural Pollinators in the United States. Winfree, R. (2013). Global change, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: What can we learn from studies of pollination? Basic and Applied Ecology, 14(6), 453–460. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2013.07.004 Winfree, R., Griswold, T., & Kremen, C. (2007). Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conservation biology  : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 21(1), 213–23. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00574.x Wratten, S. D., Gillespie, M., Decourtye, A., Mader, E., & Desneux, N. (2012). Pollinator habitat enhancement: Benefits to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 159, 112–122. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.020


Buzz on bees