Using

Green
Roofs

Photo: Ryan Merkley

to enhance Biodiversity
in the City of Toronto

A Discussion Paper
Prepared for Toronto City Planning
April 2010

Using Green Roofs to Enhance Biodiversity

in the City of Toronto
A Discussion Paper
Prepared for
Toronto City Planning
April 2010

Written by: Beth Anne Currie, M.A.Sc

& Brad Bass, PhD
Acknowledgement of the valuable contributions
by Iryna Krukovets, Nicole Puckett and Kristen Hahn

Executive Summary
Biodiversity refers to the complex, interconnected community of living organisms in an
ecosystem. The importance of preserving and promoting biodiversity has been recognized at
the national, provincial and municipal level. Green roofs offer great potential to enhance the
biodiversity of urban areas such as Toronto. In recent years, the City of Toronto has instituted a
number of policies and initiatives to encourage the implementation of green roofs across the
municipality. In 2009, Toronto became the first City in North America to adopt a bylaw to require
and govern the construction of green roofs.
Green roofs can be classified as either extensive or intensive, depending on the depth of
substrate used and the level of maintenance required. It has been recognized that the design of
both the substrate and vegetation layers of an installation can be focused to promote habitat
creation. Variation in substrate topography and composition, as well as the addition of other
materials such as logs and branches can create niche spaces for organisms. Vegetation
diversity and structural complexity also contributes to the formation of microhabitats.
Research in Europe and America has reported that a diverse abundance of bird and insect
species can be supported on green roofs. Local studies have demonstrated similar findings,
although the composition of species found on green roofs varies depending on geographic and
climatic factors. Emerging biodiversity research from Toronto suggests that green roofs provide
similar habitat potential to comparable ground-level urban habitats.
This report suggests that green roofs can be used to connect fragmented habitats when installed
in aggregation especially if located near fragmented ground-level habitats. Where technically
feasible, green roofs should be designed to protect sensitive biological communities and avoid
aggressive species. By designing green roof scapes that include important habitat forming and
forage species into planting designs Toronto will encourage the proliferation of biodiversity
across urban green roofs. In addition to strengthening existing green corridors, green roofs
represent an opportunity to create new green space in areas that are otherwise unsuitable for
natural restoration.
Green roof habitats face several challenges that must be addressed in the creation of a
biodiversity strategy for the City. The harsh, dry, and windy conditions present on a roof may
support different community assemblages than those present on the ground and may alter the
autecology of species that use green roof habitats. Invasive species also pose a threat to green
roof communities both in the short and long term. These factors may be exacerbated by climate
change and point to the value of ongoing green roof research and observation to further resolve
and understand these challenges and opportunities for biodiversity planning on green roofs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Green Roof Policy in the City of Toronto
1.3 What is Biodiversity?
1.4 Biodiversity in a National Context
1.5 Biodiversity in a Provincial Context
1.6 Biodiversity in a Municipal Context
1.7 Biodiversity as a Driver for Green Roofs
2.0 Green Roof Design to Encourage Biodiversity
2.1 What are Green Roofs?
2.2 The Importance of Substrate
2.2.1 Substrate Depth
2.2.2 Substrate Source and Composition
2.2.3 Maturity and Staging
2.3 Vegetation Design
2.3.1 Native versus Non-Native Debate
2.3.2 The Habitat Template Approach
2.4 Structural Diversity and Microhabitats
2.5 Proximity to Existing Urban Landscapes
2.6 Summary of Important Green Roof Design Considerations
3.0 Bird, Insect, and Plant Diversity on Green Roofs
3.1 Evidence from Europe and America
3.2 Birds Response to Green Roofs
3.3 Invertebrate Response to Green Roofs
3.4 Green Roofs Biodiversity Research in Toronto
3.4.1 History of Toronto Green Roofs
3.4.2 Existing Green Roof Biodiversity Research in Toronto
3.4.3 Emerging Green Roof Biodiversity Research in Toronto
3.5 Future Directions for Biodiversity Research
4.0 Opportunities and Challenges for Toronto
4.1 Torontos Biodiversity in Context
4.2 Site Scale Opportunities
4.2.1 Biodiversity and Natural Colonization
4.2.2 Sensitive and Rare Plants
4.2.3 Migratory and Breeding Birds
4.2.4 Butterflies
4.3 Landscape Scale Opportunities
4.3.1 Connecting Existing Habitat
4.3.2 Supporting Edge Habitats
4.3.3 Supporting Conservation Source-Sinks
4.3.4 Island biogeography
4.4 A Strategy for Toronto
4.5 Challenges for Green Roofs and Biodiversity
4.5.1 Extreme Conditions
4.5.2 Invasive Species
4.5.3 Climate Change

i
ii
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
9
9
10
12
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
18
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
23
23
24
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
31
31
32
32

ii

5.0 Summary and Conclusions

6.0 References
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Green Roof Comparison Chart
Table 4.1: Design Strategies to Enhance Biodiversity and Natural
Colonization on Green Roofs in the City of Toronto
Table 4.2: Design Strategies to Enhance Biodiversity on Green Roofs in
Specific Locations in the City of Toronto
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Cross-section through a typical green roof
Figure 4.2 Location of buildings with green roof potential in relation to river
valleys (forest habitat) and Lake Ontario (shoreline) in the City Toronto.
Appendix A Terrestrial invasive Plant Species for Ontario

34
35
6
28
29
5
30
42

iii

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction
The City of Toronto is developing policies and programs to promote the use of green roof
technology. These initiatives are founded on research that has demonstrated the City-wide
environmental and economic benefits of green roofs. While previous research (Banting et al.,
2005) identified habitat preservation as one of the environmental benefits of green roofs, it did
not examine in detail the substantial and growing body of research concerning how green roofs
can contribute to biodiversity in urban areas.
This report seeks to review the literature on green roofs and biodiversity and examine
opportunities for the City of Toronto to use green roof design templates as well as location and
design strategies to help promote local biodiversity over time. This study is divided into four
parts: (i) literature review; (ii) case studies; (iii) opportunities based on analysis of the literature
and case studies; and (iv) using green roofs to enhance biodiversity in the City of Toronto.
Green roofs have the potential to assist the City of Toronto to enhance its biodiversity index at
the local level and by extension, to contribute to biodiversity at the national and global levels.
1.2 Green Roof Policy in the City of Toronto
In 2004 the City commissioned a study on the potential environmental benefits of widespread
implementation of green roofs in the City of Toronto (Banting et al., 2005). The study estimated
that roof building roof areas make up 21% of the total land area throughout the City of Toronto.
Approximately 8% of that area would be suitable for the installation of green roofs (i.e., flat roofs
with an area of at least 350 square metres). The study quantified a number of the benefits of
green roofs including: stormwater flow reduction, improvement in air quality, reduction in direct
energy use and reduction in urban heat island effect. The study also stated that green roofs
could provide habitat for birds and invertebrates. The potential benefits, and risks, of green
roofs in cities to migrant birds are further discussed in a report on Migratory Birds in the City of
Toronto (Dougan and Associates and Environmental Inc., 2008).
Following the implementation study (Banting et al., 2005), the City of Toronto developed a
Green Roof Strategy (City of Toronto, 2006) to encourage green roof construction in the City.
The strategy includes four main components, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

installation of green roofs on City buildings,

a pilot incentive program to encourage green roof construction,
use of the development approval process to encourage green roofs, and
publicity and education.

As a result, the number of green roofs in the City is increasing (J. Welsh, personal
communication, 2008). The 2006/2007 pilot incentive program resulted in about 7000 square
metres of new green roof construction. The resulting Eco-roof incentive program, launched in
2009, has approved applications for 8100 sq m of green roofs on 14 projects. Green roofs have
been constructed on at least three City buildings and are currently proposed at nine other
locations. Well known green roofs in Toronto include the Manulife Centre (with a 25 year old
green roof containing mature trees up to 10 m tall), the Mountain Equipment Cooperative
building at King Street and Spadina Avenue (maintained since 1998), and a 30,000 square foot
garden at York University that was created in 2003 (City of Toronto 2006).

In June 2007, the City of Toronto won the Federation of Canadian Municipalities FCM-CH2M
Hill Sustainable Community Award for its green roof strategy. This award recognizes municipal
leadership in sustainable community development and gives national recognition to projects/
that demonstrate environmental excellence and innovation in service delivery.
In May 2009, the City of Toronto became the first City in North America to adopt a bylaw to
require and govern the construction of green roofs. The bylaw applies to all new building permit
applications made after January 31, 2010 for residential, commercial and institutional
development and January 31, 2011 for all new industrial development. The new by-law requires
green roof coverage of 20-60% on all new development above 2,000 m2 of gross floor area (City
of Toronto, 2009).
1.3 What is Biodiversity?
Biodiversity is a term that can be used to describe the multi-complex myriad of living things on
earth (Wilson, 1999; 2002). Biodiversity refers to the independent and dependant variations
within all life forms, from the smallest molecular organizations in soils to the unabated
complexities of life forms within entire ecosystems (Wilson, 1999). Biodiversity contributes to a
relentless and often invisible ecosystem service that is provided within atmospheric, hydrologic
and biogeochemical life cycles where air and water and living and dead elements are cycled and
recycled in a continuous circle of life.
An area is considered to have a high biodiversity score if it contains many different species of
plants and animals and enough of these individuals so that each species can maintain adequate
population size to allow for the persistence of species through subsequent generations
(Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Ecologists have added to this description to suggest
that species diversity must be of sufficient richness to maintain ecosystem functions despite
habitat loss, disturbance or other processes that operate at multiple spatial scales (Hannah et al.
2005; Hansell and Bass, 1998; Bass, 1996). In an urban area, biodiversity is a concept that
involves not only the quantification of available habitat areas, but also the description of species
diversity within these spaces.
An ecosystem's capacity to support a particular level of biodiversity is dependent on several
factors. Climatic phenomena such as the amount of incident solar radiation, seasonal variations
and amounts of precipitation are all variable depending on the location of the ecosystem. These
variations will affect the resource pool from which biological organisms draw their energy and
nutrients. Within any given ecosystem, microclimatic variation exists due to the structural
complexity of its biotic (natural materials from living organisms) and abiotic (non-living chemical
and physical) components. Different sub-areas within an ecosystem will experience different
levels of shading, wind exposure, runoff infiltration, and many other factors. These factors lead
to the creation of niche spaces wherein certain organisms can be established and proliferate as
they are able to optimally exploit a particular portfolio of available resources.
1.4 Biodiversity in a National Context
Early in the 1990s, the world community acknowledged the threat posed by degradation of
ecosystems and loss of species and genetic diversity by successfully negotiating the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). With the support of the provinces and
territories, Canada became the first industrialized country to ratify the Convention, which entered
into force on December 29, 1993. Canada's Response to the Biodiversity Convention has

provided opportunities for us to re-examine our relationship with nature, create new global
partnerships, harmonize national activities and develop new economic opportunities. The
objectives of the Convention are (CBD, 2008):

the conservation of biodiversity;

the sustainable use of biological resources; and
fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments, in cooperation with members of the public and
other stakeholders, are pursuing strategic directions set out in the Canadian response to
preserving biodiversity across Canada.
1.5 Biodiversity in a Provincial Context
Within Canada, Ontario is a biologically diverse province. Most of the northern part of the
province remains untouched by anthropogenic change, while ecosystems in the southern
regions are under enormous development pressures. The southern regions however, provide
habitats for nearly 40% of Canadas endangered species. In order that questions about
Ontarios species identity, genetic variation, ecological roles and ecosystem processes
especially with climate change be answered, a novel, multi-disciplinary approach will be
required. The diverse elements of such an approach are now fostered at the Biodiversity
Institute of Ontario (BIO) located on the University of Guelph campus (BIO, 2008).
Ontario, along with all provinces and Territories, is working on an Ontario Biodiversity Strategy
(OBS) that seeks to protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of its biological assets.
One means to achieve this objective was the creation of an Ontario Biodiversity Council. The
Council has members from 22 provincial organizations and an independent chair. Under the
OBS, the Council is to lead, coordinate and report on the implementation of Ontario's
Biodiversity Strategy. The Ontario Biodiversity Council has released an Interim Report on
Ontarios Biodiversity. This report contains information on important milestones towards
reporting on the state of Ontarios biodiversity in 2010 and provides an overview of biodiversity
in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008).
1.6 Biodiversity in a Municipal Context
The City of Toronto Official Plan recognizes the importance of biodiversity as part of a healthy
environment. Official Plan Policy 3.4.1 indicates that public and private city-building activities
will support biodiversity (City of Toronto, 2007a). A Biodiversity Strategy for the City of Toronto
is currently being developed and is expected to be available in 2010 to coincide with Canadas
commitment to the Convention on Biodiversity (K. Snow, personal communication, 2009). The
recent publication Birds of Toronto; a Guide to their Remarkable World is the first in the City of
Torontos planned Biodiversity Series. The Series will include guides that will help increase
understanding of biodiversity in the City, re-connect people with the natural world and inform
people how they can help reduce biodiversity loss (City of Toronto, 2007b).
1.7 Biodiversity as a Driver for Green Roofs
In North America, enhancing biodiversity has not traditionally been viewed as a key driver for
green roof policy development and proliferation. Green roofs are an emerging industry in North
America and evidence on the role and value of green roofs for biodiversity (see chapter 2) may
strengthen their position as cities consider ways in which the built environment can contribute to

ecosystem degradation, habitat loss, migratory bird stopover habitat and species-at-risk
(Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
The European view of green roofs has been more ecologically focused as the potential for this
technology to provide habitat for a multitude of species has been studied and recognized in
available literature.(Gedge, 2003; Gedge and Kadas, 2004; Brenneisen, 2008). The UK
Biodiversity Action Plan supports the use of green roofs as important linkages between habitat
fragments to facilitate dispersal and additional habitat for rare and protected species (Design for
London, 2008). In Basel, Switzerland, research focused on the potential to support species
biodiversity has led to amendments in their building and construction law. As part of Basels
overall biodiversity strategy, green roofs are now mandatory on new buildings with flat roofs.
Design criteria supported by a team of specialists recommend the use of varied and local plants
and soil substrates, combined with varied soil depths that are predictive of re-creating existing
ecological habitats. Studies of green roofs in Zurich, Switzerland, have shown that the use of
natural soils can encourage biodiversity through their suitability for locally and regionally
endangered species (Brenneisen, 2008). It has also been suggested that the incorporation of
topographic variation into green roof design may further enhance a green roofs capacity to
mimic natural habitats (Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008). Further research is needed in order to
better understand the relationships between green roof design, installation location, and
biodiversity.

2.0 Green Roof Design to Encourage Biodiversity

2.1 What are Green Roofs?
Green roofs consist of a living layer of vegetation established over a layer of substrate or
growing media that extends over a specific perimeter of flat or sloped roof surface. Under the
substrate layer, there are stormwater drainage materials, fleece and/or landscaping cloth to
prevent erosion and a root protective barrier that prevents the penetration of both water and
roots into the waterproofing membrane (Figure 2.1). Green roofs are typically classified as being
either 'extensive' or 'intensive' (Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008) (Table 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Cross-section through a typical green roof (Moran et al., 2003).
Intensive green roofs are constructed with deeper growing media generally greater than 25 cm
(10 in.) and can include water features, concrete walking pathways, pergolas and other
amenities (Currie, 2005). Because of their increased soil depths, intensive roofs can support a
great variety of vegetation such as trees and shrubs. Intensive roofs are more expensive to
construct and usually require considerable maintenance and irrigation. This type of roof is
generally constructed for installations where structural load restrictions are negligible or can be
incorporated into the initial building design.
Extensive green roofs tend to be thinner with typically 5 - 15 cm (2 - 6 in.) of substrate (Currie,
2005). Typically, extensive green roofs are composed of a smaller number plant species.
Drought-resistant, hardy perennials such as stonecrops (Sedum spp.) are commonly used in
extensive green roof designs. Extensive green roof systems can be installed on new or existing
buildings including heritage buildings as they are lightweight, relatively inexpensive and may
require less irrigation and maintenance after initial plant communities are set up (Dunnett and
Kingsbury, 2008). Extensive roofs have received the most attention in the literature because
they have been preferred across most installations, primarily due to cost factors and weight
restrictions. European studies on deeper substrates suggest that intensive green roofs may be
more successful in supporting biodiversity, however, shallow extensive green roofs with varied
substrate depths have also been shown to be ecologically productive. Roofs with media depths
and vegetation characteristics that fall in between the ranges stated for intensive and extensive
roofs may be referred to as being 'semi-intensive' (Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008). Studies of
green roofs and biodiversity in both Europe and North America suggest that substrate depth and

composition, topography, vegetative composition, green roof age and local landscape context
are variables that can be incorporated into green roof design and location in order to target
opportunities for biodiversity (Somerville and Counts, 2007).
Table 2.1: Green Roof Comparison Chart (Adapted from Currie, 2005)
Roofing Element

Extensive Green Roof

(Semi) Intensive Green Roof

Cost
Vegetation Layer
and Plant
Selection

Structural
Preparation

Biodiversity
Characteristics

$18 25 per square foot

2-6 inches planting media
minimal to no irrigation
stressful conditions for
plants requires low,
drought-resistant species
light weight
structural strengthening
usually not required
suitable to cover large
surface areas
shallow, well-drained
substrates and hot dry
conditions generally only
suitable for drought
tolerant species such as
mosses, sedums and
herbaceous plants
can support meadow,
grassland or prairie habitat
can be designed to
simulate forest understory,
riverbanks, ravines and/or
wetlands
can provide habitat for
common species of
invertebrates
can be attractive to some
species of birds (although
not been well-researched)

$40 50 + per square foot

625 + inches planting media
more likely to require irrigation
favourable for many varieties of
plants and shrubs, and trees

heavier in weight
requires structural engineering
used over smaller surface areas or
in landscaped containers

Deeper substrates can support

greater variety of habitats than

extensive green roofs
Can be designed to simulate forest
understory, riverbanks and wetlands.
Suspected to promote habitat for
native plant species and may
provide habitat for the conservation
of some heritage species and their
seeds.
Provides habitat for greater variety of
beetles, spiders, wasps, bees and
other invertebrates, including
butterflies
May benefit migratory birds as can
simulate habitat for birds to forage,
breed and rest.

2.2 The Importance of Substrate

To date, substrate quality and quantity has been the focus of much research on green roof
biodiversity. Variations in substrate including depth, source, composition and age exert an
important influence on green roof biodiversity. .
2.2.1 Substrate Depth
European studies have demonstrated that substrate depth has a direct influence on species
diversity and abundance and that variation in substrate depth across a green roof can increase
biodiversity. Dr. Stephan Brenneisen, has studied green roofs in Basel and Zurich, Switzerland

for over twenty years (Brenneisen, 2008). His observations suggest that there are a number of
green roof design considerations that may facilitate urban biodiversity. He reports that substrate
depth either constrains or facilitates species richness and abundance and hence biodiversity on
a green roof (Brenneisen, 2006). Thin, shallow substrates commonly used in the creation of
extensive green roofs reduce the ability of a roof to support biodiversity by intensifying the
already extreme ecological conditions of roof environments. These roof environments are
typically subject to intense temperature and moisture changes and tolerant pioneer species have
found this design to be a suitable form of habitat (Grant, 2006). However, some reviewers have
shown that even these shallow, monoculture green roofs can support a measure of diversity
(Dunnett et al., 2008; Hahn, 2009).
Brenneisen (2006) in Switzerland and Kadas (2003) in UK, have both demonstrated that by
varying the depths of the medium used across a green roof it is possible to create a series of
different microclimates, and subsequently microhabitats, within the same green roof zone. Their
observations show that thin substrate layers on roofs support sparse vegetation to develop,
whereas small hills or mounds of thick substrate support taller, more dense vegetation. The
sections of these test roofs where soil layers were kept thicker were able to retain more moisture
and were not as likely to dry out as rapidly compared to the shallow sections of the study roofs.
The deeper sections were able to support increased abundance and diversity of vegetation,
creating greater structural diversity and supporting more invertebrate species. Varying the depth
of substrate along with creating unevenness in the green roof terrain can also reduce heat loss
in the winter, as this varied terrain serves to reduce the wind speed and chill across roof surface
areas. Use of stones, limbs of trees and variances in plant structure and height are design
elements that can be used to enhance biodiversity on green roofs.
Other studies in North American support European findings whereby deeper planting media
favours quick plant growth, long term survivability and roof coverage. For example, the
Edgewater Condominium in Minneapolis was designed with varied depths of growing medium to
enhance wildlife habitat value of the green roof. On this roof, even the thinnest substrate studied
(2.5 cm) supported a number of varied species (Durhman et al., 2007). This finding was
confirmed by Brenneisen (2006) who reports that thin substrate segments on Swiss roofs
characterized by sparse vegetation, dryer and warmer temperatures that North America, were
found to attract specialist species. Both Brenneisen and Kadas (2003) found that drought
tolerant invertebrates were well adapted to these roof conditions and able to successfully
establish healthy populations.
Early work by Jones (2002) in London, UK, found that extreme, dry conditions on extensive
green roofs supported a number of uncommon invertebrates (ants, beetles, and other species).
Jones noted however, that overall diversity was low on a study green roof and concluded that
this low, overall diversity was a result of uniform substrate depth and poor diversity in vegetation
types.
The empirical relationship between substrate depth and species diversity from the Swiss studies
suggests a significant relationship between these two variables. Creating variations in substrate
depth as a tool to target increased biodiversity in Basel created habitat for 79 beetle and 40
spider species (Brenneisen, 2003; 2004). Of these, 13 of the beetle species and 7 of the spider
species were classified as rare or endangered (Brenneisen, 2003; 2004). The deeper, wetter
areas were found to be a key factor in attracting beetles. The density of beetle populations were
found to significantly increase with the roofs ability to retain water in both studies from the UK
and Switzerland respectively (Kadas, 2003; Brennesien, 2006).

2.2.2 Substrate Source and Composition

The origin and composition of the planting media are important design criteria when creating
roofs to specifically enhance biodiversity. The use of natural, local soils and substrates has
been found to assist biodiversity and benefit regional and endangered species because local
species are already adapted to that particular soil environment (Brenneisen, 2006; Gedge,
2003). It has been suggested that substrate composition and depth is a strong indicator of
future successes in biodiversity for green roofs and advocates for the use of a mixture of local
soil substrates and local and native seed for self-sustaining green roofs (D. Gedge, personal
communication, 2008). A recently issued study of urban biodiversity conducted by the Sheffield
Biodiversity in Urban Gardens (BUGS) project also supports claims that invertebrate diversity is
influenced significantly by the composition and distribution of substrate and less reliant on the
composition of plants (BUGS, 2007).
Soils from any particular local reflect cumulative combinations of climatic, geological and
biological degradation, intrinsic factors and organic constituents. Locally sourced substrates can
expedite the colonization by microorganisms, particularly a range of mychorrhizal fungi and plant
propagates that reflect how vegetation has adapted to that particular soil (Dunnett, 2006).
Colonization of animal and plant species may be enhanced with substrates that are extracted
from an existing and functional ecosystem to make way for a new building project or other
construction zone that may be proximal to a green roof. Coffman (2007) postulated in his
biodiversity study on the Michigan Ford Motor green roof, that colonization of the sedum mats
was probably influenced by the fact that the mats were grown beside the new building and its
target green roof in a 10 acre field over three (or more) months.
Findings from Brenneisens (2003; 2004) green roof research helped shape Basels (municipal)
building and construction codes. Existing land-use regulations attempt to minimize damage to
the natural environment and support the sustainable use of locally accessible soils. Swiss
Federal conservation and cultural legislation supports the protection of endangered plant and
animal species. Accordingly, the canton of Basel now mandates a biodiversity strategy for green
roofs that points to the use of local area soil substrates that are blended for extensive green roof
construction. In Basel, green roofs must be constructed on all new buildings with flat roofs
(Nature and Landscape Conservation Act 9; Building and Planning Act 72). Moreover, on
roofs with more than 500 square meters, the green roof substrate must be blended with local
area soils and designed and installed at varying depths.
Gilbert (1990) and Harvey (2001) noted that brownfield (post-industrial landscapes) made up of
dry gravel sites at ground level throughout the UK were particularly valuable as habitat for flora
and invertebrates. Similarly, Brenneisens early observations (before studying green roofs)
focused on exploring rare invertebrates in dry gravel and alluvial river beds that were being
impacted by erosion and urbanization. He observed that interesting 'bugs' had shifted from
these alluvial beds toward abandoned brownfield sites that existed beside the main river in
Basel. One conclusion from these studies was that brownfield substrates could become a
template for green roof substrate design in order to support these displaced species.
(Brenneisen, 2008).
Green roofs modelled after brownfields1 are called brown roofs and have been found to harbour
as much invertebrate diversity as green roofs and brownfield habitat at grade level over time.
1

In the U.K., "brownfield" is unused industrial land that can be built on; it is not necessarily contaminated

According to Kadas (2006), brownfield sites provide some of the most species-diverse habitats
in the U.K., as they have escaped development and become wildlife refuges or habitat 'islands'.
Once these brownfield sites become slated for redevelopment, their flora and fauna could be
lost. In 2004, Kadas targeted observations of key species important to the U.K. Biodiversity
Action Plan including Araneae (spiders), Coleoptera (beetles) and aculeate Hymenoptera
(wasps, ants, bees) on three green (sedum) roofs, two brown roofs2 and four brownfield ground
sites. Kadas reported that at least 10% of the species collected at these study sites were
designated as nationally rare (UK) or scarce in accordance with Natural England criteria. This
study identified 72 different invertebrate species, representing 12% of the total United Kingdom
spider fauna and 30% of the total London spider fauna (Kadas, 2006). The data indicated that
green and brown roofs can be important habitat zones for both invertebrate and ecological
conservation.
Some researchers in the UK have used brownfield substrates in their brown roof design out of a
need to protect an endangered bird species such as the black redstart (Poenicurus ochruos).
This bird species had adapted to abandoned brownfield landscapes that were increasingly
vulnerable to housing development (Gedge and Kadas, 2005; Grant, 2006).Conventional
rooftops were fortified with substrates typical of brownfield sites and observations over fifteen
years have found that these brown roofs support significant populations of the black redstart
(Grant, 2006).
Recreating local habitat on roofs has involved placing soils from regional riparian areas and
other aggregates made up of recycled concrete from brownfield sites, in order to support
successful habitats for bird and invertebrate species in Basel and London (Gedge and Kadas,
2005; Brenneisen, 2006).
2.2.3 Maturity and Staging
The age or maturity of a green roof and its plant community is another important factor in
understanding biodiversity on green roofs (Jones, 2002; Grant et al., 2003; Brenneisen, 2006).
A German study of ten vegetated roofs in two different age classes revealed that roof substrates
compost over time and follows a similar pattern of degradation as those processes at ground
level in disturbed habitats (Schrader and Boning, 2006). Their study revealed that over time,
extensive green roof substrates are characterized by reductions in bulk density, increases in
organic matter, and increases in species abundance and richness (Schrader and Boning, 2006).
The oldest roof in their study exhibited the most unique soil properties of all the test roofs, and
reported the highest levels of biodiversity.
Very few studies have looked at the influence of age on species abundance and diversity above
the substrate level. In a study in Sheffield, UK, bee abundance and diversity were correlated
with age of a green roof. This might have something to do with the establishment of wild
flowers, which provide greater habitat and foraging opportunities for the bees (Gong, 2007).
2.3 Vegetation Design
The vegetation layer of green roofs also plays a significant role in fostering biodiversity. A
technical report that supports Londons (UK) Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) recognizes that
green roofs can be designed to mimic almost any habitat that is desired including targeted plant
species (English Nature, 2003). Habitats that necessitate the use of trees or shrubs may be
2

Brown roofs consist of substrate made from recycled aggregate that has been left to colonize naturally or, in some cases seeded
with local wildflower seeds

better suited to intensive roofs (see below), while extensive roofs may be best suited to
grasslands and herb communities (Design for London, 2008). The most common extensive
green roofs are planted with sedums and can provide habitat for common species, whereas
uncommon species, are more likely to colonize on green roofs that mimic a specific habitat at
grade level (Design for London, 2008). Both intensive and extensive green roof types can
become potential hosts for many common and uncommon varieties of moss in London (Design
for London, 2008). Green roofs can support a multitude of different plant species, depending on
the depth and composition of the substrate. Green roof plant choices can be a complicated
matter and an emerging body of literature has examined various plant design considerations.
2.3.1 Native versus Non-Native Debate
Native plant communities are defined as a group of plants whose interactions with other
organisms in the community have evolved independently of human intervention (Dunevitz Texler
and Lane 2007). These native communities are distributed according to climate, landform, and
soil patterns and shaped by natural disturbances, primarily due to extreme weather less so by
human intervention and design. Native plant communities have evolved over many centuries
and are adapted to the local environmental conditions. They provide important sources of food
and shelter to birds, butterflies, and other animals. Their unique profile and vulnerabilities on
green roofs have not been well studied or tested on green roofs (S. Benvie, personal
communication, 2008).
It is thought that diverse native plantings on green roofs can potentially be used to attempt to
replicate local native plant communities and their ecological benefits.
Research has
demonstrated that the use of local vegetation in planting designs allows colonization from native
species to occur more quickly, as they are already adapted to such vegetation (BUGS, 2007).
As well, local species such as hoverflies and solitary bees have been observed to show high
native plant fidelity (BUGS, 2007). Other preliminary studies have found similar patterns. For
example, in Alberta, a semi-intensive (deeper than 6 inches) green roof was established with a
native mixed prairie community (Clark and MacArthur, 2007). When compared to an extensive
green roof made up of non-native short grasses and sedum, the semi-intensive roof was
reported to have achieved more biomass in spiders and species variability and a greater overall
biodiversity (Clark and MacArthur, 2007).
Establishing a protected (conserved) native plant community on a green roof can be a difficult
task. It has been suggested that rare plants and invasive species may encroach and threaten
native species on green roofs which could increase the amount of maintenance required for
such planting designs (S. Benvie, personal communication, 2008). However, some green roof
designers have contended that green roofs comprised of native plantings may be more
successful as once established they require less fertilizer, water, and maintenance compared
with non-natives (T. McGlade, personal communication, 2008). The autecology of a species
refers to the manner in which it relates to its environment through its entire life cycle. Green
roofs represent a novel habitat for native plant species although a plant's autecology may
change in response to this new environment. Factors such as a plants regeneration tactics,
preferred and critical structural needs, habitat formation, and establishment and generation time
may all be affected on a green roof. Moreover, considerations such as the environmental
tolerances and preferences required by each species, the market (nursery stock) availability of a
species, the threat of invasive species to this particular plant selection and whether any of the
target species on the green roof become invasive to other proximate communities are
compounding variables for consideration in this debate.

10

Native plant species may not necessarily be local in origin, depending on market availability. .
Dunnett (2006) has raised this issue in his discussions of the need to use local plants as a
source of seeds rather than seeds from other areas. The concern is whether native plants from
non-local sources are genetically fit to survive during the entire year of their establishment on a
green roof. Most urban sites, and particularly green roofs are a drastic transformation from their
original natural habitat, thus an assumption that original genotype of native plants will be better
suited than non-local plants may not be credible.
A species that is not typically invasive may act invasive under certain conditions where it
experiences altered hydrology, altered nutrient levels, or other unforeseen environmental
pressures. Examples of native species that can dominate in some situations are Canada
goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) and Manitoba maple (Acer negundo) (Morton Arboretum,
2009). Evaluating whether or not a species will become invasive in a particular restoration
project is an important consideration for each planting3. Dunnett (2006) echoes this warning that
many native species are in fact highly invasive, and can dominate the landscape and reduce
overall diversity on a green roof.
On the other hand, many exotic species can be greatly adaptable to particular environment
especially if it is similar to their native habitat. Exotic species are plants or animals that have
been introduced into a certain local communities. Some species are introduced with a specific
intent in mind, while others are introduced by accident. While some exotic species are unable to
compete with native species, certain exotics are able to out-compete native species and may
become invasive and take over. For example, the extensive green roof on 1 Pace Plaza in lower
Manhattan was planted with approximately 3,200 m2 of sedums and other succulents as well as
native meadowland and prairie species that are known to attract birds (Levandowsky, 2006).
During the hot, dry summer of 2005, the growing medium became totally desiccated and many
native plants died. The survivors included Sedum spp. and other succulents (exotics that have
adapted well), as well as a number of typical weeds, including spurge (Euphorbia maculate),
nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), speedwell (Veronica longifolia) and 2 moss species
(Levandowsky, 2006).
Dunnetts (2006) review of biodiversity supports the use of both non-native substrates and nonnative exotic species on green roofs and purports that the use of native plants may be a less
significant variable on the amount of invertebrate activity compared with other factors such as
the age and geographic location of a green roof. Dunnett (2006) also suggests that while native
species do have many benefits in terms of supporting biodiversity, that substrate qualities,
spatial and vertical structure of vegetation, (regardless of geographical origin), and the overall
diversity of content on a green roof is equally important. Dunnett posits:
that more thought should be given to the creation of ideal conditions for the establishment
and long-term persistence of naturalistic vegetations, the content of which may vary
according to context in effect it is about ecology and biodiversity as process rather than
lists of names. We should view ecological communities, and the possibilities for their
creation as continua, rather than absolute and fixed points. In an urban green roof context,
these continua should take as much account of aesthetics and visual criteria as they do of
scientific ones (2006, p.11).

3
Researchers believe there are several factors that contribute to a plant becoming invasive including:
fast growth rate; seeds that germinate quickly in high percentage; prolific seed production, which begins within the first few years of the plants
life; easy seed dispersal by animals, water, and wind; ability to reproduce by seed as well as vegetatively, e.g. through suckering; longer flowering
and fruiting periods; and adaptability to a wide range of soil and growing conditions

11

Dunevitz, Texler and Lane (2007) cite a number of reasons not to plant rare or native plant
species including that many of these rare species have been reduced to a small number of
fragile populations that are located in sequestered global communities that could be damaged or
impacted by the introduction of varied genes from similar plants from different geographic areas
(Havens, 1999). Another reason is that since many rare plants have very specific and complex
habitat requirements, it is unlikely that planting or transplanting them to green roofs will be
successful as a long term strategy.
Green roofs in Switzerland and the UK rely to varying extents, on natural colonization to seed
new green roofs. Some researchers caution against a reliance on natural colonization to
vegetate green roofs and as natural colonization may result in sparse vegetation cover over the
first few years of growth coupled with the fact that the roofs may come to be dominated by a few
aggressive, primary succession species (Grant, 2006). Lundholm (2006) reflects that to date,
research on green roofs has largely proceeded from the engineering considerations for better
stormwater runoff quality and quantity and related building energy benefits. Lundholm (2006)
suggests that the use of entire communities of plants on green roofs requires more
understanding of habitat characteristics and the relationships between plant community
structure, climate and ecosystem functions. He predicts that these concerns will shift research
on building-surface vegetation to the forefront.
Opinions regarding the use of native species in green roof planting designs thus remain mixed
and further research in this area is needed in order to resolve this debate. Instead of focusing
on the characteristics of specific species, another approach to green roof vegetation design
considers species assemblages from a community perspective.
2.3.2 The Habitat Template Approach
Prairie grassland habitat creation is one of the few examples of a specific landscape that has
been successfully re-created on North American green roofs, often created with native plants.
Tall grass prairies are important habitats for several species of migratory birds (D. Gedge,
personal communication, 2008), and these habitats on green roofs could play a similarly
important role in the City of Toronto. Extensive green roofs, which are low in nutrients, free
draining and 'hot' generically can mimic many of the characteristics of dry meadow grassland
(Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008). Native plants found in this habitat are characterized by
thickened cuticles, hirsute stems and leaves, highly reflective surfaces, fine or narrow leaves,
sticky surfaces that can hold onto water, leathery rough leaf textures that reduce the speed of
wind traveling over leaves, and many water storage cells.
The attempt to use local prairie habitat as a design template has led to trial and use of three
native analogues in Minneapolis, MN (MacDonagh et al., 2007). In Minnesota, green roof
designers are learning lessons from the native substrate that supports bedrock bluff prairie, a
subtype of dry prairie, which occurs on bluffs along the Mississippi and its tributaries in south
east Minnesota, as well as occasionally along the St. Croix River. Prairie ecosystems are found
to support more than 25 species of prairie grasses and forbs that grow 12 cm to 76 cm tall and
over thin soils. More research on prairie grass species that adapt well to green roof conditions
are recommended, however some successes on exiting green roofs can be observed.
Minnesota also boasts the Phillips Eco-Enterprise Center (PEEC), a state-of-the-art green
building and business centre that opened in 1999. It has a monitored, extensive green roof with
18 native and 11 European plant species. Traditional European green roof plants were planted

12

in swale-like depressions with 2 of growing medium. Bedrock bluff plants native to Minnesota
were planted in 2-6 of growing medium. After 15 months, the percent cover of Grey Goldenrod
(Solidago nemoralis) exceeded that of all other species while Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium) had the highest percent cover among the native grasses. Subsequently, the Lunds
Market green roof in downtown Minneapolis was planted with sedums and chives as well as
Little Bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), Spiderwort (Tradescantia occidentalis) and Prairie
Onion (Allium stellatum). Similarly, the green roof on the Edgewater Condominiums, located
adjacent to the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes region, was designed to visually express the
connection between the green roof and adjacent Lake Calhoun. The roof was planted with a
traditional white sedum in 7.5 cm of substrate with a diversity of other sedums and short native
bedrock bluff prairie plants in 10-13 cm of growing medium. These species may adapt well to
green roof conditions, however, ongoing monitoring will be required (Green Roof Projects, 2009)
A green roof ecologist and plant grower/installer in southwestern Ontario and has been
collecting seed from grade-level, naturalized tall grass prairie systems and experimenting with
direct hand distribution and nursery grown applications on green roofs over the past few years
(M. Natvik, personal communication, 2008). Results of this experimentation would suggest that
the use of little blue stem, black-eyed Susan, wild bergamot and other naturalized species seeds
help conserve existing prairie system species, enhance biodiversity and improve overall system
performance where drought and winds dominate.
2.4 Structural Diversity and Microhabitats
Structural complexity arises as a result of the interaction between the substrate and the plant
species present in a given area. On green roofs, other factors such as the presence of rooftop
equipment and the shading influence of adjacent structures (parapets, HVACs) also contribute to
the habitat's structural complexity. Microhabitat creation is an important determinant of
biodiversity within the plant and soil communities on a green roof. While often limited by roof
size and load bearing capacity, green roofs can be designed purposefully to provide a range of
structural complexity within plant communities. Large roofs or roofs with high load bearing
capacity provide the greatest opportunity for diversity by permitting a greater range of vegetation
type and size, including trees and shrubs as well as ponds or wetlands.
The manipulation of substrate depths created microhabitats that led to greater species diversity
in the studies completed by Brenneisen in Switzerland. Another technique that has been used
to create microclimates and microhabitats has centred on the addition of large objects such as
branches, stones, sand piles and rubble (Grant et al., 2003). In Switzerland, solar panels on
roofs created a shaded, damp area and led to an increase in invertebrate diversity (Gedge and
Kadas, 2005). The placement of additional objects on green roofs as design features may
encourage species to use the roofs for a variety of activities yet to be discovered. Branches can
serve as resting sites for birds to perch and nesting structures, such as bird or bat boxes, can
encourage species to nest and breed (Dunnett and Kingsbury, 2008). Similarly, branches or
snags can provide physical connections and shady habitats for invertebrates on green roofs.
Studies at the University of Sheffield have examined the role of plant diversity as a central
feature in promoting invertebrate diversity, and found it not to be statistically significant. Rather,
structural diversity or variance in height as well substrate depth was the most important factor in
encouraging biodiversity (BUGS, 2007).
2.5 Proximity to Existing Urban Landscapes
The proximity of green roofs to other naturalized zones or landscapes has been shown to have a
positive influence on biodiversity. Features such as parks, greenways, fields, other vegetated

13

roofs were examined in a long- term study in Berlin from 1985 to 2005 (Kohler, 2006). Green
roofs located in proximity to other grade level vegetated areas demonstrated higher levels of
species richness compared to those that were not. Roofs that were located in urban centers but
proximal to green areas were better candidates for natural dispersal and colonization from
adjacent habitat than roofs located farther away. The TRCA study at the York University green
roof has reported a similar finding from a case study on their extensive green roof. The York
University study found six species of birds and a similar diversity of bees as were observed in
the surrounding habitat at ground level (Miller, 2008).
Research is lacking on the ability of green roofs to act as stepping stones for species
conservation, bird feeding and nesting or habitat creation in an urban landscape. Researchers
also question whether the city is the appropriate spatial scale from which to implement a
landscape approach to green roof design (Canzonieri, 2007). European and North American
research has provided evidence that green roofs can offer suitable habitat for targeted species in
the urban world. The question emerges - will a handful of green roofs, if well designed for
biodiversity, make a significant impact on regional biodiversity? For example, can green roofs
act as stepping stones to connect isolated fragments of habitats for mobile and wind dispersed
species? A landscape ecology approach to the design of green roofs would advocate for
planning beyond an individual roof and moving to a framework of green roof aggregations where
these networks of living roofs can effectively facilitate the movement of species. The
advantages of a well coordinated green roof network could be measured in a larger geography
in the creation of the synergistic effects created when a certain number of roofs were clustered
in an area or in a corridor.
2.6 Summary of Important Green Roof Design Considerations
A few general principles can be gleaned from the review of available research on biodiversity
and green roofs. Regardless of where a green roof is placed in an urban area, biodiversity will
increase because the green roof will eventually provide habitat for an unpredictable range of
plants and animals. While many researchers support the use of native plants, there are broad
disagreements on this issue. Green roof biodiversity does seem to increase if the installation is
proximal to other naturalized spaces or habitats, although research on the potential synergistic
effects of using green roofs to expand natural habitats or create corridors that link up natural
areas is nonexistent at this time. Nonetheless, studies show that even isolated green roofs in
urban areas achieve some level of biodiversity over time as seeds disperse land and respond to
open disturbed growing media on roof tops. As plants grow and respond to this newfound space,
a green roof may provide resting, feeding or breeding grounds for birds and other invertebrate
species.

14

3.0 Bird, Insect, and Plant Diversity on Green Roofs

3.1 Evidence from Europe and America
A search of existing literature on green roofs and biodiversity is limited by the fact that while
green roofs have become more prominent in the North American marketplace, few rigorous
scientific investigations have been conducted for this locality. Biodiversity research is now a
growing area of interest and researchers in North America and Europe are beginning to
collaborate in order to examine matured green roof installations in both continents. Most studies
are currently European in origin; however, many have not been translated into English at this
time. The available research has demonstrated that both extensive and intensive green roofs
can provide temporary habitat for a range of migratory birds and invertebrate species.
3.2 Birds Response to Green Roofs
Surveys of bird sighting and activities in Switzerland have found that the primary activity on
green roofs was nesting and feeding. Among the 1,844 sightings 1,304 (70%) involved activities
such as preening, searching for nesting material, feeding, nesting and singing (Brenneisen,
2003; 2004). The most common bird species on Swiss roofs included black redstarts
(Phoenicurus ochuros), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), rock doves (Columba livia) and
wagtails (Motacilla spp.). Baumann (2006) reported that certain migratory ground nesting birds,
such as the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius),
were using Swiss vegetated roofs as nesting sites. These species are listed as endangered and
have been awarded high levels of protection under European biodiversity programs. Their
habitat is threatened due to development pressures.
Observations of migrant birds visiting the 20,300 square food green roof over Chicagos City Hall
was generated by Jerry Garden in 2002 - 2003 (Millett, 2004). In 2002, Garden observed
numerous migrants including Flycatchers (Empidonax spp.), Kinglets (Regulus spp.), Blackcapped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), Cape May Warblers (Dendroica tigrina), Dark-eyed
Juncos (Junco hyemalis), and Field and Song Sparrows (Passer spp.). By 2003, even more
species were recorded including Woodpeckers (Picidae), Olive-sided Flycatchers (Contopus
cooperi), Philadelphia Vireos (Vireo philadelphicus), Brown Thrashers (Toxostoma rufum),
Common Yellowthroats (Geothylpis trichas) and six species of sparrows (Passer spp.) (Millett,
2004). Many of these species are long distance neotropical migrants known to be declining in
numbers throughout North America. Neotropical migrant birds are the songbirds that represent
over 50% of North American bird species. As spring begins, more than 300 species of
Neotropical migratory birds head north to breed and raise young in the United States and
Canada. In the fall, they return to warmer climates in tropical regions of Mexico, Central
America, South America, and the Caribbean (Neotropical Migrant Birds, 2009).
This survey helps to demonstrate the potential value of larger green roofs in support of migrating
birds. Although green roof habitat may not be ideal for longer term breeding or immediate
foraging requirements, green roofs may be a good temporary stopover destination useful for
exhausted migrant birds. Other potential hazards to migrating birds include glass windows in
urban tall buildings. Green roofs located in urban settings near tall buildings with extensive
reflective (e.g., glass) surfaces may increase the incidence of bird strikes against these buildings
by attracting them and serving as a location from which the birds take-off. Dr. Daniel Klem
(2009) of Muhlenberg College has done studies over a period of 20 years that have examined
bird collisions with windows and concludes that glass kills more birds than any other human
related factor. It is estimated that at least 1 billion birds are killed by flying into windows every

15

year in the United States alone (Klem, 2009). Further research is required to assess the nature
and severity of this hazard in Toronto, although the Fatal Light Awareness Program in Toronto
would corroborate some of Dr. Klems findings (Dougan & Associates and North-south
Environmental, 2009).
While many authors agree that green roofs provide opportunities to improve biodiversity among
avian species, the notion of targeting a green roof for a particular bird requires more careful
analysis, design and monitoring. An urban extensive green roof was designed to attract the
Lapwing (Vanellinae) and Plover (Charadriinae) by Brenneisen (2003; 2004) using moss,
grasses and an herb mix - all plants and materials determined to have nesting and habitat
potential for these species. Five pairs of Northern Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus) were able to
nest and breed on this urban green roof suggesting that breeding birds can use green roofs as
nesting sites in urban areas (Baumann, 2006).
Brenneisen has since reported in a recent telephone interview that all but one of the chicks died
on this roof (S. Brenneisen, personal communication, 2008). The surviving chick was supported
by the researchers who established collection plates to capture rainwater on the green roof.
These researchers decided to make this intervention because it was observed that if hollowedout areas in the substrate had been incorporated in the green roof design that puddles may have
saved the lives of the other chicks as well. Lapwing parents do not fetch foodstuffs for their
young, hence increasing the vulnerability of this targeted species on green roofs. Other
researchers would argue that autecology is essential when designing for biodiversity on green
roofs especially when designs aim to attract a particular target species (S. Benvie, personal
communication, 2008).
Baltimores National Aquarium in Maryland has attracted a nesting mallard duck amongst its
4,000 square foot sedum green roof system installed above the new Australia Exhibit at Pier 3.
This species constructed its nest from the abundant sedum plant materials found growing on the
roof system (Smith, 2007). The Chicago City Hall survey (Millett, 2004) also demonstrates the
potential value of green roofs as temporary stop over destinations for migratory birds.
To date, there are no studies in Canada that compare and examine the feeding, nesting,
fledgling or brood successes on different types of green roofs. Baumann (2006) suggests that
the value of enhancing the design of green roofs to provide habitat and food sources for
breeding birds and their early young should be considered, given the number and potential for
green roof applications particularly on commercial and industrial buildings that border residential,
riparian or forested zones in urban areas.
3.3 Invertebrate Response to Green Roofs
The importance of focusing on measuring and designing green roofs that support opportunities
for invertebrates has also been expressed by green roof researchers (D. Gedge, personal
communication, 2008). According to Gedge (2008), invertebrates have become a particular
target species for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Traditionally, habitat type for green roofs
have been viewed from a botanical or horticultural perspective alone, however; research by
Brenneisen (2003; 2004) and Kadas (2006) have helped to focus the UK on measuring
biodiversity by the number and variety of invertebrates including spiders, beetles, wasps and
bees, but particularly the number and variety of spiders. It has been suggested that because
spiders are a predatory species, they occupy a range of niches within plant communities and
can be a biological indicator of the success of any one plant community on a green roof (D.
Gedge, personal communication, 2008).

16

Kadas (2006) categorically concludes that it is not the quantity of habitat that is important but
more so the quality of the habitat that supports successful invertebrate assemblages. Kadas
(2006) suggests that spiders can be separated by some distance from each other as long as the
quality of their habitat is strong and physical connections are available such as logs, sticks, and
other plant structures. Spiders need access to moisture, shade, dampness and a consistent
supply of prey insects in order to establish a sustainable community. Kadas (2006) research
would suggest that diverse invertebrate assemblages both rare and interesting, have adapted to
conditions on a variety of green roofs in both the UK and Switzerland however, some substrate
depths and types and vegetation are more conducive than others.
Kadas (2003) investigated invertebrates on a sedum (monoculture) green roof in the UK. The
researcher found more species on sedum roofs compared to a green roof built specifically to
mimic brownfield habitat. Of the species collected, 10% of the invertebrates were designated
rare and five had never been recorded previously in London (Gedge and Kadas, 2005). A
species of spider that had never been observed in Southern England before that time was
identified in the study. Similarly, in sampling seventeen UK-based green roofs Gedge and Kadas
(2005) recorded 78 spider species, 18% of which were endangered, and 254 beetle species,
11% of which were rare.
Clark and MacArthur (2007) have argued that green roofs could support a substantial arthropod
(spider) community. In turn, they predict that a spider community is predictive of plant
community longevity and resilience and that a decrease in green roof maintenance and plant
replacement costs may follow. These authors suggest that a green roof with several types of
spiders may be predictive of the overall ecological function of a green roof. Hence, increased
diversity of spider species on a green roof may suggest greater biodiversity.
Coffman (2007) compared two different green roofs in the mid-western USA, for biodiversity at a
community and taxa level. The two roofs were an extensive sedum roof and an intensive green
roof planted with a mixture of shrubs, grasses and forbs. The intensive roof supported a greater
diversity at the community level, but no distinction could be made at the taxa level. Specifically,
the intensive roof supported a higher diversity of rare spiders and rare birds species while the
extensive roof was visited by more common birds. Both roofs supported a similar number of
insect species.
According to European researchers, green roofs can be successfully designed to provide
sustainable habitat for rare species of invertebrates that are particularly at risk due to land-use
changes associated with urban expansion (Jones, 2002; Brenneisen, 2003; Kadas, 2003; 2006).
A comparison of colonization rates found on green roofs designed for biodiversity was compared
to other conventional green roofs in Basel. The number of species of beetles and spiders on the
biodiversity green roof increased over a period of 3 years whereas it took 3-5 years on a
conventional green roof to support the same number of species (Brenneisen, 2003).
The Cook + Fox Architects building (2006) in New York City provides a brief case study of an
extensive green roof, planted primarily with sedum, that provides habitat for a range of
invertebrates including migrating butterflies.
This installation employed a mixed planting
strategy to minimize monoculture patches to help foster biodiversity (Green Roofs for Healthy
Cities, 2006). Almost immediately after installation, insects were observed on the green roof.
Dragonflies were the first to arrive, followed by moths, gnats, and flies. In early September 2006,
the first bird was spotted and later, two hawks were observed using the roof railing as a perch.
New York occupies a strategic stopover in the semi-annual migration pathway for monarch

17

butterflies, and throughout the fall, butterflies were frequently foraging on the green roof. In late
September, small, orange grub-shaped insects were observed on the leaves of Russian
Stonecrop (Sedum kamtschaticum) which were identified as immature ladybugs (Coccinellidae
spp.).
A few studies to date report observations of butterfly activity on green roofs. Butterflies are
potentially useful ecological indicators of urbanization because they are readily surveyed by
environmental groups and are vulnerable to changes in microclimate, temperature, solar
radiation, and the availability of specific host plants for ovipositing (laying eggs) and larval
development and feeding. Jenrick (2005) found that Horseshoe Vetch (Hippocrepis comosa)
and Kidney Vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria), which are reliable green roof plants, provide important
food sources for UK-based butterflies and rare invertebrates. This researcher reports that
butterfly species richness and diversity was directly correlated with plant species diversity
(Jenrick, 2005).
Certain types of plants might also assist with preserving or conserving butterfly species that
require specific microclimates and or thin substrates. For example, the Lycaenid butterfly
(Lysandra bellargus), in the UK, requires short turf and a warmer microclimate including a
warmed upper plant canopy, specific host plants beneath and warmed soil. However, reductions
in the intensity of animals that graze in the UK (e.g. (bovine, equine, and ovine species)has led
to increases in vegetation heights and cooler temperatures with concomitant changes in
biodiversity and species structure in some landscapes (Parmesan, 2005). For example, the
Nymphalid butterfly (Argynnis pahia), in the UK, requires open woodland, where the sun can
penetrate to the forest floor. Changes in woodland management have increased the canopy
cover, increased shading, thus cooling this butterflys local microclimate to a potentially
deleterious level (Thomas, 1993). Both of these examples illustrate the potential for using
extensive green roofs to provide habitat for migrating butterflies in the UK.
In San Francisco, rare and threatened invertebrate species such as the Checkerspot Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha bayensis) have been identified as species which may benefit from the
creation of suitable green roof habitats (P. Kephart, personal communication, 2008). By
studying the composition of native plant communities and foraging pollinators, including
butterflies, Kephart has translated ground level conditions to green roofs. The Checkerspot
Butterfly has been observed to react positively to green roof installations which use amended
substrates (serpentinite, i.e. blueish-green stone) and native grasses indigenous to the San
Francisco Bay area. Several such installations have been designed by Kephart, including the
2.5-acre green roof of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.
3.4 Green Roofs Biodiversity Research in Toronto
3.4.1 History of Toronto Green Roofs
Green roofs are not a new technology for the City of Toronto as they were installed as roof
gardens on private balconies, beach houses and alley garages back in the 1970s and 1980s
(T. McGlade, personal communication, 2008). Over the past 5 years, green roof installations in
Toronto have become more dominated by pre-planted, extensive, sedum-based systems.
These extensive installations addressed a need in the market for light-weight, pre-established
systems for clients who would otherwise not consider retrofitting older buildings with a green roof
due to load restrictions. Observations on older green roof types across Toronto reveal that early
designers were experimenting with biodiversity by varying substrate depths, substrate mixes,
species composition (including blends of non-native and native species) that may have
inadvertently supported biodiversity over time.

18

Most green roofs have been installed on a client-by-client basis in new construction or on retrofit
buildings on an ad hoc basis. Many were established on commercial buildings when roofing
membranes or mechanical upgrades were completed or on residential home as owners learned
more about the technology and expressed a willingness to give something back to the
environment (T. McGlade, personal communication, 2008). Currently, hundreds of green roof
installations exist in Toronto (J. Welsh, personal communication, 2009). As more people choose
to install green roofs, continued monitoring of the number, distribution and total area of green
roofs in Toronto is needed.
3.4.2 Existing Green Roof Biodiversity Research in Toronto
Studies on green roofs and biodiversity are just beginning to be undertaken at the University of
Toronto and other centres across the City of Toronto. In a few years, much more will be known
about plant survivability and biodiversity on green roofs in Toronto. Local studies are important
because green roofs require an understanding of population ecology (the dynamics of species
populations as well as knowledge about how these populations interact with the environment) to
ensure species selection and design promotes long term plant survivability and regeneration.
Several local studies have focused on butterflies on green roofs. The Norfolk Field Naturalists
annual Butterfly Count is conducted in July at Long Point, Ontario (Norfolk Field Naturalists,
personal communication, 2009). Results indicated that overall butterfly density was lower than
last year, however total counts were higher and even hit a record number for 5 out of the 45
species. Its not completely clear what role the green roofs played in this region, however,
observations of butterflies on a green roof within Long Point were included. Other observations
of butterfly activity on green roofs reveal that plant species such as Swamp Milkweed (Asclepais
incarnata), Tiger Lily (Hemerocallis spp.), and Coneflowers (Rudbekia spp.) have attracted
butterflies to a 5 story green roof location downtown Toronto (T. McGlade, personal
communication, 2008).
In a study undertaken in Peterborough County, it was noted that the inclusion of ornamental and
exotic plants in naturalization efforts could provide butterflies with new potential host plants to
forage (Hogsden and Hutchinson, 2004). This study found that species richness is equally as
high or higher in moderately disturbed compared to undisturbed sites, although a slight majority
of butterflies (58%) preferred undisturbed sites. Some of the butterfly species that appeared
well adapted to disturbed areas were observed feeding from a greater diversity of host plants,
suggesting that they may be able to use a wider range of host plants as resources. The
observations also suggest that if habitat and resource requirements are made available, even in
a disturbed environment, butterflies will use the site. Finally, this study also suggests that a
number of small sites in the urban core might provide a matrix of butterfly habitats leading some
to conclude that increasing green roofs may provide solid opportunities for butterfly habitat (D.
Gedge, personal communication, 2008).
Other case studies have explored biodiversity on existing installations. The green roof located at
York University, Toronto, was seeded with non-native grasses and forbs into low nutrient
growing media in 2003 (TRCA, 2006). Green roof observations in 2005 isolated 91 vascular
plant species, of which 29 (32%) were native. It was noted that from 2004 to 2005, 11 new
native plant species were found on the roof. A faunal survey in 2004 and 2005 revealed that six
bird species had visited the greenroof including a breeding pair of Canada Geese (Branta
canadensis) and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus). The European Starling (Sturnus
vulgaris) was the most frequently observed species at the site, although no migrating bird

19

activities were recorded at that time. However, migrant bird utilization is predicted to increase as
plant and community structure evolves on the roof. The study examined the roof as for potential
bee habitat site and reported that given its current plant community and structure, bee nesting
and foraging may occur in the future.
In terms of plant species diversity and proliferation, discussions with local Toronto green roof
researchers, observers and academics as part of the research for this report note that when
sedum species were planted in a variety of substrate depths, those that were supported in
deeper substrates were more established, hearty and thick. Additions such as occasional
(sporadic) irrigation and intermittent fertilizer applications were also noted to have encouraged
species on the deeper substrate (R. Sage, personal communication, 2008). Observations taken
from the Ryerson University School of Engineering green roof would suggest that monoculture
plant species and designs (in this case, hybridized lily species) can provide favourable habitat
support for the arrival of a variety of wind and animal dispersed varieties of plant species (K.
Hahn, personal communication, 2008). In ongoing research, Hahn has quantified as many as 40
new plant species on the Ryerson roof that were not part of the original plant design.
3.4.3 Emerging Green Roof Biodiversity Research in Toronto
Ongoing biodiversity research is currently being lead by Dr. Mart Gross' Lab in Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology at the University of Toronto. In the fall of 2008, five research projects
examined the biodiversity of birds, insects and plants at four urban habitats including green roofs
in downtown Toronto. Thirteen sites were used in the urban core (Hasnain and Gross, 2009;
Haile, 2009; Revinskaya, 2009; Varatharajan, 2009). Each site contained a green roof, bare
roof, green ground and bare ground. Bare roofs were covered by traditional roofing materials
such as tar paper, bitumen, and gravel; green grounds were lawns, parks and boulevards with
typical vegetative cover; bare grounds included parking lots and other paved areas with gravel
and concrete surfaces that were not intentionally planted with vegetation. These studies are
among the first to examine green roof biodiversity in comparison to currently available
alternative urban landscapes.
The diversity of bird species seen on green roof sites was roughly equivalent to that on green
ground sites. Bare ground sites and bare roofs were also used by birds but attracted different
species. There was no use of green roofs by migrants. The research suggests that urban green
roofs provide a superior foraging habitat for birds than do bare roofs in the urban core, but
cannot replace green ground sites due to limitations in size, vegetation structure and levels of
anthropogenic disturbance (Haile, 2009).
Green roofs and green ground areas were found to contain similar insect abundance and
diversity. These areas contained four times more insects than comparable bare habitats and
significantly more diverse insect communities. Green roofs also hosted unique insect taxa not
found elsewhere in urban Toronto (Hasnain and Gross, 2009). In addition, important pollinators
were found to preferentially use green habitat over bare habitat independent of vertical height
(Revinskaya, 2009).
Finally, biodiversity of vegetation was examined through a collaboration between students at the
University of Toronto and Ryerson University (Hahn, 2009; Varatharajan, 2009). A subset of
eight green roofs was used to census vegetation. A total of 112 plant species belonging to 30
families were observed, with an average of 25 species found on each roof (Hahn, 2009). Almost
40% of observed species were asters (Asteraceae) or stone cops (Sedum). Approximately twothirds of species on green roofs were found to be colonists, meaning they were not intentionally

20

planted within the installations (Hahn, 2009). Most of these colonist species were found to be
perennials that were wind-dispersed in origin (Varatharajan, 2009). Green roofs had the highest
diversity of plant species in comparison to the other urban habitat types (Varatharajan, 2009).
Thus, the ongoing research from the Gross lab is showing that green roofs make a significant
contribution to the biodiversity of plants and animals in urban Toronto.
As several researchers have noted, the importance of arthropods in creating a healthy
ecosystem in the long term cannot be underestimated. As demonstrated by studies of
brownfields in London and prairie grassland in Alberta, spider populations are best established
on a green roof that has been designed to mimic a highly diverse ground level environment.
Most researchers agree that substrate depth and variation is the most important design
component for creating sustainable, biodiverse green roof habitats. These design features will
be reflected in some of the discussion below.
3.5 Future Directions for Biodiversity Research
Quantification of the presence and use of green roofs by bird, insect and plant species is in its
infancy in North America. Long-term monitoring is necessary to further understand and resolve
the dynamics within these unique ecosystems. There is a multitude of opportunities for research
on this topic, especially in the following areas as little empirical research has been directed at
examining:
Coexistence of species on mature green roofs in urban areas;
Patterns of species' survival and immigration / emigration;
Alterations in species' life cycles associated with green roof habitats in urban areas;
Occurrence of invasive or unwanted species;
Influence of neighbouring ground-level habitat on species composition;
Effect of green roof placement and aggregations, and,
Impact of varying biodiversity and other green roof benefits

21

4.0 Opportunities and Challenges for Toronto

4.1 Torontos Biodiversity in Context
Within the City of Toronto, the main reservoir of biodiversity is found within the natural heritage
system illustrated on Map 9 of the Official Plan. The components of the Citys natural heritage
system and strategic directions for improving the natural ecosystem and increasing biodiversity
are described in a 2001 report (City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
2001). An overview of Torontos ecological context and natural heritage is provided below.
The City of Toronto is part of Ontarios Mixedwood plains ecozone, one of three ecozones found
in Ontario. The Mixedwood Plains extends along the Quebec City -Windsor corridor, including
the densely-populated region of southern Ontario and makes up about 10% of Ontarios entire
geography. The smallest of the ecozones, the Mixedwood Plains is nonetheless home to half of
Canada's population. Its cool winters (average temperature -5C) and warm summers (average
temperature 17C) are prone to highly changeable weather, as the ecozone is in one of the
major storm tracks of North America. This ecozone has been heavily impacted by intensive
agriculture and urbanization such that native habitat has been reduced to isolated remnants of
the original landscape. The remaining fragments of original forest account for Ontarios largest
diversity of tree species. The City of Toronto is ecologically bounded by several kilometres of
Lake Ontario shoreline in the south, the Oak Ridges Moraine in the north and two major river
watersheds, the Humber and the Rouge River, on its western and eastern boundaries,
respectively. The City encompasses approximately 63,551 ha of land where urban development
and extensive engineering have heavily fragmented the pre-existing natural environment. While
only a fraction of the original meadows, forests, wetlands and riparian habitats remain, as a
whole Toronto maintains a reasonable coverage of terrestrial natural habitat for an dense urban
area, primarily as a result of the extensive valley land and river networks where development
has been restricted. The most robust biodiversity can be found within Torontos river valley
networks (Humber, Don, Highland and Rouge). However, vulnerability from adjacent land use
changes, invasive species and general degradation continue to impact negatively on biodiversity
and species survivability in the long term.
The total amount of natural ground cover available in the City (based on 1999 information) is just
over 8,595 ha (13.5% of the total city area) not including streetscapes, residential yards, urban
trees or manicured park areas. Forest areas occupy 4,384 ha (6.9%) of the City of Torontos
land base and are found predominantly in the valleys, with the largest forest blocks located in
Rouge Park and Morningside Park. The Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan (as cited in the 2001
City of Toronto Natural Heritage Study) suggests a minimum of 30% forest area cover would be
necessary to establish and maintain a sustainable urban ecosystem. However, this target may
be too large for an urban area such as the City of Toronto given that the City is essentially
developed.
Forest interior habitat exists within the Rouge and Morningside Park areas with smaller
fragments in the Don and Humber watersheds. Other rich and biologically diverse habitats
across the City of Toronto include the Leslie Street Spit area, High Park, parts of the Lake
Ontario shoreline and the Toronto Islands. Meadows and wetlands in Toronto also support
area-sensitive species. The largest meadow fragment can be found over the Beare Road Landfill
(81.1 ha) and two others are contained in the Rouge. Wetlands occupy a small amount of area
but receive a higher biodiversity weighting because they are smaller and can support crucial
biodiversity within their constituent species. These wetland ecosystems are essential to
ecosystem health and biodiversity in Toronto.

22

Overall, Toronto maintains a strong coverage of terrestrial natural habitat for an urban area,
primarily as a result of the extensive valley land networks where development is restricted
coupled with the presence of the Rouge Park. Natural habitat cover is not distributed evenly
across the City and decreases substantially from east to west and from north to south across the
City. The lowest scoring habitats in terms of biodiversity are described as small, narrow remnant
habitat patches that are completely isolated from other natural areas. Many of these fragmented
habitats are small (less than 5 ha in size) and are convoluted in shape with a limited capacity to
support a viable animal population. Toronto is home to several rare animal and plant species,
many located in the eastern Rouge valley watershed while other at-risk species are scattered
across minor fragments. While numerous and rare flora exist in the City, many are threatened
by encroachment of urbanization, loss of habitat, invasive species such as Emerald ash borer
(Agrilus planipennis), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
coupled with an overall decline in ecosystem health.
4.2 Site Scale Opportunities
Site scale opportunities are designed to encourage biodiversity and natural colonization of
specific species and plant communities over time at a specific and suitable location.
4.2.1 Biodiversity and Natural Colonization
Conceptually, green roofs can be viewed as a strategy to shift lower diversity habitats
(conventional bitumen roofs) into higher diversity ones (green roofs).
Houghs (2004)
observations on terrestrial habitats, suggest a phased-in method to restore fuller diversity. He
recommends starting with fast-growing pioneer plant species that provide initial ground cover,
ameliorate existing soil damage, add nitrogen and bacteria, provide niches for fungi and create a
variety of microclimates for other species to intercept. This would be followed by an intermediate
phase where different plants are introduced and are followed by a climax phase (forest groves)
where slow-growing, long-living perennials and trees become part of the established plant
community. Based on 8-10 years of observations on research plots, has been noted that this
process is more successful if the three phases are implemented at different times (Hough,
2004).
Not all practitioners agree with Houghs phased approach when applied to green roofs. One
researcher recommends designing the green roof landscape immediately for climax phase (W.
Amelung, personal communication, 2008). For example, green roofs on fortified (cement) roof
structures could be considered for climax phase natural colonization designs where slow
growing native plants and wetlands would give way to shrubs and small trees over time as
long as substrate choices and depths were suitable. While there are very few buildings where it
would be feasible to establish forest groves (climax phase) on green roofs, some existing or
new buildings can accommodate the biomass of small to medium trees in mixed plantings along
with other hardy perennial herbaceous species which help buffer and bolster adjacent forested
areas (W. Amelung, personal communication 2008).
4.2.2 Sensitive and Rare Plants
Rare and sensitive vegetation communities found in Toronto include tall grass prairie, savannah
remnants and several coastal plant communities (City of Toronto and TRCA, 2001). These types
of rare and sensitive plants may benefit from locations on roofs as they may be less likely to be

23

disturbed by wildlife, humans or development as they can be designed to mimic conditions

similar to the natural habitats of these plant communities. Habitat that is suitable for rare or
sensitive species may be modeled on green roofs and then studied over time to capture
adaptations and changes in community structure. Alvar4 species (vegetation adapted to
seasonal flooding, extreme summer drought and limestone/chalky conditions) such as Sedum
spp. have been successful adapters in the shallow, low-nutrient substrates on green roofs. The
open gravel and bedrock conditions typical of natural alvars in Ontario, support mosses, algae,
liverworts, lichens, grasses and some rare herbaceous plants that have been recommended for
some green roofs in Toronto. According to recent research by Hahn (2009) communities of
sedum species on green roofs may set beneficial conditions for natural colonizations and habitat
extension for fuller biodiversity on green roofs.
Other rare and/or highly sensitive plants in Toronto are located within larger habitat patches or in
isolated and inaccessible areas. Examples of such species include sea-rocket (Cakile edentula)
and seaside spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia) at Bluffers Park and fringed gentian (Gentiana
crinita) at East Point and on Toronto Island Park. Green roofs placed adjacent to or near these
locations plants may benefit from wind and wildlife dispersal of these rare and sensitive plants.
However, there is little to no research with these plants on green roofs in the City of Toronto.
4.2.3 Migratory and Breeding Birds
The City of Toronto has a number of policies and programs directed at migratory and breeding
bird conservation and these are described in more detail in the Migratory Birds reports for the
City of Toronto (Dougan & Associates and North-South Environmental, 2008) and Birds of
Toronto (2007). While habitat created by green roofs will typically not provide the same quality
of food or shelter found in a natural area, green roofs do provide vegetation where there would
otherwise be none and thereby create potential habitat for local and migratory birds. Green
roofs could be used as part of a strategy to provide or enhance stopover habitat for migratory
birds and foraging, nesting and mating needs of breeding birds
Urban development and loss of habitat have impacted travel distances, expended energies, and
reduced the availability of food sources for migratory birds passing through Toronto. A matrix of
well-distributed aggregations of diverse green roof habitats may become attractive for migratory
birds that view green roofs as possible stepping stones in a search for more suitable and larger
habitat patches at ground level (D. Gedge, personal communication, 2008). Diverse green roofs
established with grasses and herbaceous plants mature each season to produce numerous
seed heads that can provide invaluable energy sources for newly arriving migratory birds
particularly those who are exhausted by a lengthy migratory journey over Lake Ontario
(Stutchbury, 2007; S. Brenneisen, personal communication, 2008).
The following examples illustrate how breeding and migratory birds in the City could benefit from
habitat opportunities on green roofs:

Species such as the Northern Cardinal

pubescens), Black-Capped Chickadee
carolinensis), Rock Pigeon (Columba
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)

(Cardinalis cardinalis), Downy Woodpecker (Picoides

(Poecile atricapillus), White-Breasted Nuthatch (Sitta
livia), European Starling (Stumus vulgaris) and the
may benefit from habitat provided by green roofs

Alvars are naturally open habitats with either a thin covering of soil or no soil over a base of limestone or dolostone. North
American Alvars support a distinctive set of flora and fauna, and almost 75% are located in Ontario; Ontarians have a responsibility
to conserve these globally significant habitats and their specialized species communities.
http://www.natureconservancy.ca/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5961&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=on_ncc_

24

particularly if aggregations of biodiverse green roofs provide habitat and food for breeding
pairs. Some of these species were recorded on the York University green roof and the
downtown Toronto green roofs featured in the University of Toronto study (TRCA, 2006;
Haile, 2009).

Temperate migrants, including the American Robin (Turdus migratorius), the Red-winged
Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and the Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) build nests on
or near existing buildings in Toronto and have been observed on the York University green
roof among other downtown Toronto roofs (TRCA, 2006; Haile, 2009). Increases in the
number and diversity of available green roofs, might provide habitat and feeding
opportunities for these nesting and migrating temperate species.

Grassland birds found in Toronto include the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). These species are often observed in the unmowed
grasses along hydro corridors in the City (Dougan & Associates and North-South
Environmental, 2008) and may benefit from green roofs that are designed as meadow or
grassland habitats on buildings (where technically feasible) adjacent to or near hydro
corridors or Lake Ontario (D. Gedge, personal communication, 2008).
4.2.4 Butterflies

Toronto and area support a rich diversity of butterfly species with mixed habitat preferences that
include trees, grasses, shrubs, native plants and environmental conditions. Some species
prefer habitats like deciduous woodlands, fields, roadsides, pine barrens, wooded swamps,
parks, moderately disturbed open environments, weedy areas, gardens, or roadsides and
require a range of plant species like alfalfa, clovers, milkweeds, thistles, tickweed, sunflowers,
peppermint, dogbane, asters and others. While little to no empirical research has been
conducted on butterfly activity in response to green roofs in the Toronto area, informal sightings
of Monarch butterflies have occurred on downtown green roofs (J. Spring, personal
communication, 2008). These sightings are encouraging, especially given that some local green
roof designs have been shown to incorporate plant choices that attract and support butterfly
larvae of the Monarch (Currie and McGlade, 2005).
Green roofs may have the potential to support the reintroduction of threatened species like the
Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis) that occurs naturally in the northeast U.S.
and in Wisconsin although there is no large continuous habitat where it does occur. A study in
southern Ontario found that habitat fragmentation is stalling the Karner Blues migration
northward into Ontario from the United States (Chan and Packer, 2005). It has been suggested
that all of the Karner Blue butterflys habitat is fragmented, with sites often several hundred
kilometres apart. The Karner Blue larvae feed only on wild Lupine (Lupinus perennis L.) that
may be available along a few roadsides, gardens and disturbed environment Ontario. The
Karner Blue is also a weak flier, (weaker than other commonly occurring eastern "blues") and is
made vulnerable because it usually flies close to the ground. Species such as butterflies need
more than a host plant in order to thrive including a host of environmental factors such as a
complex network of organisms above and below ground.
There may be a way to shift green roof design toward plant species communities modelled from
ground level studies that support the autecology of this species. It should be noted however,
that green roofs designed to attract this species of butterfly may require a very high level of
complexity and aggregation to overcome the current fragmentations within their habitat.

25

4.3 Landscape Scale Opportunities

Green roofs provide habitat in locations where otherwise there would be none. They also
provide new and relatively accessible horizontal extensions to existing habitat fragments across
the City (Hahn, 2009; Halie, 2009; Hasnain and Gross, 2009; Revinskaya, 2009; Varatharajan,
2009). According to a Toronto green roof study, the total flat roof area (greater than 350 sq. m.)
that could accommodate roof greening is approximately 5,000 hectares or 50 million m2 of roof
landscape (Banting et al., 2005). This study found that if just 8% of this roof landscape were
greened, it would contribute significant improvements to urban air quality and storm water runoff
quality. As well, more green roof applications could incrementally support urban biodiversity with
plant communities, habitat, microclimates and unique ecosystems that would benefit flora and
fauna including those that are rare and vulnerable.
4.3.1 Connecting Existing Habitat
Green roofs can provide connections between existing habitat fragments. When observed from
the sky, green roofs appear as green islands that have been described as ecological stepping
stones in urban areas which can be used by migrating, feeding or breeding birds, insects and
plant species. By intentionally designing diverse green roofs, more species may have
opportunities to find nutrients, forage, nest, and fledge young. Examples where green roofs
connect with existing habitats are the three proximal green roofs located in downtown Toronto
on the Mountain Equipment Coop roof, the 401 Richmond street roof and the 215 Spadina
Avenue roof. Each green roof is geographically close and relatively low (3-4 stories) which helps
to connect habitat from the existing mature tree-lined streets in China town, the small park on
Spadina south and the clustered trees in Grange Park to the Toronto waterfront itself.
4.3.2 Supporting Edge Habitats
Green roofs can enhance or add to existing edge environments and buffer zones throughout the
City. The goal is to enlarge existing naturalized habitats, by adding similar or complementary
habitats in proximity to them. Green roofs could expand naturalized buffer zones and edge
communities by adding native plants for conservation that perform other ecosystem services
such as provide food for pollinators and resting, feeding, and breeding space for migratory birds.
Green roofs may also be suited to preserve and increase the diversity between habitat
fragments located at grade-level that are particularly susceptible to further disturbance from
urban environments. For example, tree species within small forest fragments expose a large
proportion of their edges (and the communities of flora and fauna that live on these edges) to
vulnerabilities that take the form of excess wind exposure, temperature fluctuations, soil erosion,
salt spray and small mammal predation by generalists such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes that
feed on eggs and young birds. Green roofs on tall buildings may be less vulnerable than these
edge habitat communities as they are more protected from invasion by terrestrial generalists
lacking the means to scale walls and are not susceptible to salt spray, but also have to be
designed to minimize the risk from wind, heat and exposure to flash rainfall events.
Green roofs may also enhance the survivability of desired species within fragmented natural
habitats in urban areas. Green roofs installed within short distances of targeted habitats may
benefit plant and animal species on several scales, including providing a destination for natural
colonization and supporting much needed protected foraging and nesting space in both the short
and long term. Interestingly, research that compares green roofs and ground level biodiversity

26

supports the finding that where habitat fragments interface edge to edge they exhibit higher
scores on the diversity of species within both habitats (Hough, 2004; Dunnett, 2006). Existing
grade level fragments may also benefit from close aggregations of diverse green roofs placed
strategically on buildings that align or lie parallel to designated fragment communities.
Square-shaped fragments score highest in terms of habitat strength and biodiversity at grade
level (Hough, 2004). It is purposed that green roofs may act as a proxy for ground level habitat,
given that green roofs are mostly rectangular and/or square in shape. While the shape of green
roofs may strengthen some biodiversity scoring, a typical green roof is small and often isolated
from other natural habitat. Consideration to placing a number of green roofs (aggregations)
within several hundred meters of each other may assist plant and animal species and enhance
biodiversity scores over time. The City of Torontos Natural Heritage study (2001) ranked
fragmented habitats in terms of their shape and their biodiversity strength. Accordingly,
fragment shapes that provide a higher biodiversity score had a lower ratio of exposed edge to
non-exposed edge. Exposed edges add risk for further fragmentation, invasive species, wind
damage, salt spray and predation. Lower scoring fragment sites are those with small, narrow
remnant habitat patches that are completely isolated from other natural areas. Smaller
fragments appear to support common species, but if maintained and improved they may become
more substantial contributions to natural heritage as stepping stones or stopover areas for
animals on the move another potential asset for green roofs designed for biodiversity across
the City (City of Toronto and TRCA, 2001).
4.3.3 Supporting Conservation Source-Sinks
Green roofs may provide positive habitats or habitat sources for the conservation and
preservation of rare or threatened species. Habitat source-sink dynamics describe how
variations in the quality of habitat affect populations of living organisms. When considering how
green roofs might affect the survivability of a population, studies must be directed at that
population over time. A green roof with high quality habitat may enhance population growth and
be described as a source. A green roof with low quality habitat may be a sink or one that does
not support a given population. However, if excess individuals from the source habitat green
roof move to the sink habitat green roof, the sink population may be strengthened indefinitely.
While conservation is a key driver for green roof infrastructure in the Technical Report on Green
Roof Policy in London, UK (Design for London, 2008), conservation and preservation have not
gained status in North America and require more study and ecological analysis.
4.3.4 Island biogeography
An alternative option for the spatial arrangement of green roofs is based on the concept of island
biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). Small contained areas, for example, tropical
islands, contain a large share of endemic and rare species since isolation from other land areas
discourages migration and homogenization of communities. Over time, isolation may have
played a role in protecting these endemic species as they are excluded from competition with
other species that may be present in other areas. Urban development and changes across
urban landscapes have also created islands of isolated habitats within and across large urban
tracts (Earn et al., 2000). For example, species available in High Park in the west lack
connectivity to species in the Don Valley due to roads, streets, buildings, neighbourhood
development, industry, vehicles and many other obstacles. Earn and colleagues (2000) suggest
that a lack of connectivity may in fact be important in protecting certain plant or animal
communities. Green roofs offer a degree of isolation from other ecosystems across the City and
may be effective in preserving some populations. Using green roofs to connect fragmented

27

natural area in urban settings is important since existing fragments may not meet minimum size
and resource requirements for many species. However, connectivity should only be facilitated to
a point since too much aggregation may allow aggressive species to invade and damage
delicate habitats.
4.4 A Strategy for Toronto
This section describes strategies that can be used to enhance biodiversity in the City of Toronto.
Table 4.1 illustrates several design strategies that are predicted to enhance biodiversity and
natural colonization on green roofs in Toronto. The strategies can be applied to green roofs in
any area of the City.
Table 4.1: Design Strategies to Enhance Biodiversity and Natural Colonization on Green
Roofs in the City of Toronto
Characteristics

Planting

Design Strategy

Substrate

Emphasize native species

Any non-native species used should be noninvasive
Review suitable plant species including end
points and life cycle needs for targeted species
including soil substrates, plant community
needs, microbes, food sources, moisture
temperature, and relationships with microbes)
Select grasses and herbaceous plants that
produce numerous seed heads that can provide
invaluable energy sources for migratory birds

Position substrate near building sites before

elevating to the roof if practical (species can
inoculate substrate at grade level)
Incorporate local materials in substrate blends
(compost/porous materials) (Refer to City of
Toronto Green Roof by-law supplementary
guidelines; FLL (2002) also provides ratios and
blending recommendations)
Use compost liberally where practical
(composting may occur on roof or other gradelevels where possible)
Vary substrate depths and drainage regimes to
create a mosaic of microhabitats on and below
the soil surface that? can facilitate colonization
by a more diverse flora and fauna
Vary substrate depths by adding
berms/mounds, bare areas, and physical
substrate connections (such as limbs or tree
snags) to enhance species movement
(promotes heterogeneity)

Add bird boxes, bat boxes, and trap nests for

bees as desired

Add snags (tree limbs) and stones for terrain

variation and moisture retention

Add depressions to collect rain water for short

periods

Structure

Management Implications

Maintain green roof 2-3 times per

year to ensure unwanted trees
and/or invasive species are
removed (see Appendix A for
partial list of invasive species)
Irrigate to enhance survivability in
first two years
Uphold seasonal maintenance
schedules
Save seed pods in autumn;

Check load-bearing status of

roof/building with structural
engineer
Avoid use of fertilizers where
possible (phosphate loading can
be an issue on green roofs)

28

Table 4.2 provides suggestions for green roofs that are located near or adjacent to specific
locations in the City of Toronto including forested habitat, the Lake Ontario shoreline or hydro
corridors (Figure 4.1). The locations were identified based on the overall direction for
naturalization from the 2001 Natural Heritage Study (City of Toronto and TRCA, 2001) and the
report on Migratory Birds in the City of Toronto (Dougan & Associates and North-South
Environmental, 2008)
Table 4.2: Design Strategies to Enhance Biodiversity on Green Roofs in Specific
Locations in the City of Toronto
Green Roof Location
Areas adjacent to forested
habitat (e.g., river valleys,
Rouge Park).

Objectives
Enhance/buffer adjacent
ecozones and link green
roofs to forest ecosystems
at grade level. Beneficial
matrix influence through
climate and hydrological
mitigation to buffer
adjacent forest
ecosystems.
Provide perching/
breeding/ feeding
opportunities for migratory
birds, butterflies and
insects.

Areas adjacent to Lake

Ontario (shoreline/
waterfront) and river valley
corridors

Provide habitat for native

plants.
Extend perching/ breeding/
feeding zones for migratory
birds, butterflies and
insects.

Provide habitat for native

meadow/praire plants and
Areas adjacent to hydro
corridors

Extend meadow grassland

habitats and support
zones for migratory birds,
butterflies and insects.
Provide habitat for native
meadow/prairie plants

Design Strategies
Create higher order climax
ecosystems; use small shrub
and tree species
Enhance property perimeter
regions at grade level to scale
up available shrubs and other
forest constituents

Species for
Conservation or
Protection
Forest Interior birds, rare
plants, native shrubs/small
trees, pollinators including
butterflies (along with
other trophic benefactors
eg. microbial soil
constituents)

Design for aggregations of

green roofs on clusters of
buildings.

Meadow grasses (native and

non-native) perennials + tall
grass prairie species; also try
pre-vegetated mat systems
with augmentations in
substrate depths/ shapes/
mounds where practical.
Include plants that produce
abundant seeds to feed early
spring migrants.
Meadow, grasslands or prevegetated mats with
augmentations to substrate
depth as practical.

Migratory birds and

butterflies, native plants,
insects and other
pollinators (along with
other trophic benefactors)
Alvar species

Meadow plants, grass and

shrubland birds, butterflies
and invertebrates
Alvar species and possibly
some meadow marsh
species where water is
retained more.

29

Figure 4.2: Location of buildings with green roof potential in relation to river valleys (forest habitat) and Lake
Ontario (shoreline) in the City Toronto.

30

Green roofs placed adjacent to forested areas may capitalize on ecosystems strengths at grade
level and within the canopy itself. Proximal green roofs afford songbirds and other migratory
species including butterflies, a safe, green (cool and damp), ecozone for perching, resting,
feeding and breeding.
Green roofs become ecological sinks for seed dispersal from forest interiors (dropped by visiting
birds, insects or wind) where natural succession may occur without vulnerability from human or
predator intervention. Green roofs with open substrates may become host for succession
species brought by wind or visiting fauna. While trees and shrubs require more substrate and
structural integrity, some roofs may be equipped for this added weight through biomass and
adapt quite well over time.
Areas near the lakeshore and adjacent to river corridors have been identified as particularly
important for migratory birds. Green roofs, particularly large roofs, positioned near the
lakeshore, river valleys and ravines and designed with structurally diverse plant community may
create new habitat opportunities and in these areas.
Green roofs located adjacent to hydro corridors where meadowland habitats dominate may
provide support to meadow species such as migratory birds, plants and winged invertebrates.
Green roofs are ideal for supporting grassland/prairie habitat. Meadow, tall grass prairie and
coastal plant species have been shown to survive reasonably well on existing green roofs
throughout Toronto (TRCA, 2006; T. McGlade, personal communication, 2008). Numerous
grass and shrubland birds including Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlarks
(Sturnella magna), Brown Thrashers (Toxostoma rufum) and Eastern Towhees (Pipilo
erythrophthalamus) are experiencing population declines across eastern North America. Green
roofs may enhance feeding and breeding opportunities for these migratory species. Where
technically feasible, buildings with large roof surface areas are particularly suitable to increase
migratory bird feeding opportunities.

4.5 Challenges for Green Roofs and Biodiversity

Two major challenges for biodiversity on green roofs are extreme weather variations and
invasive species. Climate change may exacerbate both of these conditions.
4.5.1 Extreme Conditions
Plant and animal communities on green roofs are challenged by thin substrates, small habitat
zones, exposure to intense sun and wind, building heights (especially non-winged species and
poor climbers), lack of moisture or flooding (at times), quick freeze conditions (a lack of
connection to geothermal earth can freeze water-clogged root systems), urban air pollution and
disconnection from ground level habitats for renewal (seed banks, forests, wetlands etc).
Earthworms, for one, are unable to survive the intense temperatures on green roofs as thinner
substrates quickly transfer summer heat throughout the growing media (Brenneisen, 2006). At
time of planting, green roofs are particularly vulnerable to moisture balance and are vulnerable
to plant death if some form of moisture (rainfall) or irrigation is not available. Once plant roots
are established, irrigation can be disconnected, however, adequate rainfall is often essential in
the first and second growing season.

31

4.5.2 Invasive Species

Invading species are one of the greatest threats to the biodiversity of Ontario's waters, wetlands
and woodlands. Originating from other regions of the world, and in the absence of their natural
predators or controls, invading species can have devastating effects on Ontario native species,
habitats and ecosystems in cities and regions across the province. Studies note that while
green roofs serve as destination points and useful habitat for wanted species, some unwanted
varieties may thrive and management strategies as well. A list of invasive terrestrial plant
species species that threaten environments around Toronto is provided in Appendix A. One that
is particularly relevant to green roofs is Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), an invasive exotic
wetland plant, that has had well-documented widespread impacts on biodiversity in wetlands.
Green roofs could become a repository for purple loose-strife; however, few if any reports of
purple loosestrife on green roofs have been noted in the City. Hand-weeding is one mechanism
to control invading plants, including unwanted tree species that can be quickly employed on
green roofs.
Interestingly the types of green roofs that are best equipped to reduce invasive species are the
extremely light-weight extensive roofs as their substrates become nutrient deserts over time.
4.5.3 Climate Change
Climate change will exacerbate habitat loss and the threat from invasive species, currently the
two largest threats to biodiversity in Canada (Lovejoy, 2005). Climate change is already
affecting the physiology, phenology (migration time, budding and flower time etc) and
biogeography (location) of plant and animal species globally (Hughes, 2000; Root et al., 2003).
Plant phenology (budding and flowering time) is predicted to respond to increasing atmospheric
CO2 concentrations, but the responses will be species-specific, making it difficult to provide a
general statement (Murray and Ceulemans, 1998; Ward and Strain, 1999). Species of birds and
butterflies have begun shifting pole-ward and upslope (Hannah et al., 2005). Birds are beginning
to demonstrate altered ranges and Toronto may encounter species of birds that are typically
found 100s of kilometres south of the border within the United States. Green roof design will
need to consider a changing species compliment in Toronto over time and design plant
communities accordingly.
The primary short-term response of plants may be phenomenological, especially on green roofs.
Warmer winters and earlier springs are expected to affect the timing of budding, leafing and
flowering on plants as these phases occur with accumulated temperature, total heat or growing
degree days above a certain threshold (Peuelas and Filella, 2001). Plant communities are
expected to take much longer to migrate and react to climate change compared to birds.
Butterflies are capable of accessing and exploiting small patches of habitat, especially if their
requirements are fairly limited (Thomas, 2000). Butterflies may move quite rapidly with changes
in temperature at grade level (Parmesan et al., 1999). However, some species respond at about
one-half of the expected rate (Grabherr et al., 1994: Parmesan, 2005). Generally, insects are
predicted to reach adulthood more quickly, and some species will undergo more generations per
year (Peuelas and Filella, 2001). This may help birds adapt and find food sources on green
roofs particularly at migration times.
Some migratory bird species will be vulnerable to a mismatch in timing between resource
availability (insects and plants) and their life cycle. This lack of synchronicity with plant/insect life
cycles is predicted to put further stress on migratory birds and pollinators that rely on this

32

balance. Day length is a migration cue for several species of bird (Coppack et al., 2001). These
animals may arrive at their breeding grounds too late or too early to take advantage of the
emergence of essential food plants and insects (Visser et al., 1998). Green roofs designed to
support migratory birds will need to consider climate change variables when selecting plant
communities in the short and long term.
Climate change will present a challenge to soil biota and the ecosystem services provided by
many soil organisms. For example, in a grassland ecosystem, the soil food web is composed of
microflora, protozoa, arthropods, nematodes and annelids (Moore et al., 2004). Even small
changes in the soil habitat will be seen as changes in abundance and biomass and/or
biodiversity (Bongers and Ferris, 1999). Nonetheless, it is still not possible to generalize the
impacts across all ecosystems, particularly green roofs. In grassland habitats, some of which
may be models for green roofs in Toronto, the soil organisms have been found to be vulnerable
to climate change which may affect the resilience of higher trophic levels as the soil food web
plays a critical role in mediating plant allocation of nutrients and herbivores (Wall, 2005).
Climate change will also impact mycorrhizal fungi and the soil bacteria that fix nitrogen for plants
use. Mycorrhizal fungi are likely to play a key role in plant community transitions as diversity in
mycorrhizal fungi promote diversity in a wide range of plant communities (Janos 1987; Borchers
and Perry, 1990; Van der Heijden et al., 1998). On green roofs, successful establishment of
plants is highly dependent on certain types of mycorrhizal fungi. Changes in fungi availability will
impact green roof ecosystems services over time if these communities are hindered along their
life cycles.
Many species will alter their range to match changing climates, which will become more difficult
with habitat fragmentation. Ecosystems will not move as one unit to a new habitat. Individual
species will move at their own speed and not necessarily to the same new fragment areas.
Fragmentation will also reduce the likelihood that new species will be capable of colonizing
these habitats through seed dispersal. Climate change will open up new opportunities for
invasive species and pioneering species, particularly those that are commonly termed 'weeds'.
The most visible impact is likely to be on a species range, where impacts that will involve
colonization in some areas and population decline in other areas (Hewitt, 1996), a response that
can be extremely rapid.
Climate change may pose a challenge not only to green roofs but to all ecosystems in the City.
However, green roofs, because of their small size, thinner substrates, height and low nutrient
availability may be particularly more vulnerable than other systems. One strategy is to manage
the out-migration and in-migration of plant communities quickly so as to minimize the risk
associated with established new invaders in order to maintain similar degrees of diversity while
maintaining the desired ecosystem services provided by the green roof. Another strategy is to
use green roofs as part of a larger network of ecosystems to reduce habitat fragmentation.
Monitoring and maintenance is important, both at the surface to assess the impacts of climate
change on existing species, and below the surface to maintain communities of mycorrhizal fungi
and other soil bacteria.
Strategies for green roof design that target biodiversity and species conservation will require
ongoing monitoring in order to observe how these habitats adapt to climate change. Green
roofs may inspire unique adaptations that can assist researchers understand responses at grade
level. Depending on the degree of change necessary, a green roofs adaptation may be its best
medium to long-term strategy for survival climate change.

33

5.0 Summary and Conclusions

Green roofs are becoming more common in North America and are being spurred on by
municipal incentives, strong partnerships and collaborations between industry and research as
well as improvements in technology, materials and performance.
Green roofs are one tool for enhancing biodiversity in urban areas. Green roofs can help to
bolster and extend existing grade level habitat by establishing habitat in areas where it would not
otherwise exist. While green roof habitats may not be as abundant or as high quality as those at
ground level, green roofs can provide suitable habitat for animal and plant species that are able
to adapt to and develop survival strategies to cope with extreme weather and temperature
conditions. Green roofs can be designed to maximize biodiversity particularly when biodiverse
grade level habitats are adjacent or close by. Green roofs can be designed to mimic almost any
grade level habitat although alvar and other adaptable plant species may be more suitable.
There are several ways to deconstruct an urban green roof; one way would be to view it would
be as a biophysical desert island within a sea of urban form. Another would be to view green
roofs as functional ecological units within an ecological network. It is this latter view that will
enable green roofs to benefit both the natural environment already established in the City and
population health, well being and quality of life therein. As demonstrated in this report, green
roofs not only reduce energy use, manage storm water runoff and improve air quality but also to
preserve and increase biodiversity.
Suggestions have been provided about how the City of Toronto might use green roofs to
contribute to biodiversity from a regional perspective, within a landscape (i.e., larger geographic
context) and within an ecological planning context, although challenges are presented by
extreme weather and temperature conditions, shallow, low nutrient substrates, possible invasive
species and climate change as predicted for Canada.
City of Toronto green roof programs, incentives and by-laws are sending strong market signals
to the development, construction, roofing, landscape design, and technical green roofing
industry. Leadership has also stemmed from a variety of sources including international green
building standards such as LEED, industry associations, including Green Roofs for Healthy
Cities (Toronto) who have fostered North American networks, capacity in industry, market
development, and hosted yearly conferences that coalesce expertise and research from across
the globe. Building retrofits and a sophisticated residential market are contributing to the steady
growth in green roof installations currently being experienced across the GTA. The City of
Toronto also co-hosted the International Green Roof congress in 2009.
Toronto is also claiming a place in green roof research as the University of Toronto and Ryerson
University embark on collaborative green roof studies that are predicted to benefit and spur
more research and knowledge transfer to industry in years to come. Green roofs may become a
touchstone for visitors, citizens and politicians alike as ideas generated on roofs get conveyed
back to communities, gardens, parks and backyards in places in and beyond the city.

34

6.0 References
Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B.A, and M. Verrati. (2005). Report on
the
Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto.
Prepared for the Toronto City Planning Division and Ontario Centres of Excellence Earth
and Environmental Technologies (OCE-ETech), October 31. 2005.
http://www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/pdf/executivesummary.pdf.
Bass, B. (1996). Working Group Report, in Atmospheric Change and Biodiversity: Formulating a
Canadian Science Agenda, by RE Munn. Centre for Environment, University of Toronto, pp.
46-56.
Baumann, N. (2006). Ground-Nesting Birds on Green Roofs in Switzerland: Preliminary
Observations. Journal of Urban Habitats 4 (1): 37-50.
Biggar, K., and B. Bass. (2007). Reducing Environmental Impacts of Employment Lands: Policy
and Practice. In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual International Green Roofs Conference:
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Minneapolis, April 29 to May 30th. Toronto:
The Cardinal Group.
Biodiversity Institute of Ontario. (2008). http://www.biodiversity.ca/pa/ge/about-bio/the-institute.
Accessed Aug 29th, 2008.
Bongers, T., and H. Ferris. (1999). Nematode Community Structure as a Bioindicator in
Environmental Monitoring, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 224-228.
Borchers, S., and D. Perry. (1990). Growth and Ectomycorrhiza Formation of Douglas-fir
Seedlings Grown in soils Collected at Different Distances from Pioneering Hardwoods in SW
Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 20: 712-721.
Brenneisen, S. (2003). The benefit of biodiversity from Green Roofs Key design
Consequences. In Proceedings of the First Annual International Green Roofs Conference:
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, May 2003. Toronto: The
Cardinal
Group.
---. (2004). From Biodiversity Strategies to Agricultural Productivity. In Proceedings of the
Second Annual International Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Portland, May 2004. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
---. (2006). Space for Urban Wildlife: Designing Green Roofs as Habitats in Switzerland. Urban
Habitats 4(1): 27-36.
BUGS. (2007). Biodiversity in Urban Gardens Program, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Monitored by Dr. Nigel Dunnet, Ecology Professor.
Canzonieri, C. (2007). A Landscape Approach to a Citywide Greenroofs Strategy: The
Landscape Ecology of Roofs. Presented at Ecocity 2008 World Summit, San Francisco, CA,
September 2007. http://www.yorku.ca/carmelca/cv.htm

35

Chan, P., and L. Packer. (2005). Assessment of Potential Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) (Family: Lycanidae) Reintroduction Sites in Ontario, Canada. Restoration
Ecology 14 (4): 645-652.
City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (2001). City of Toronto Natural
Heritage Study. City of Toronto. Background Report to the Toronto Official Plan.
City of Toronto (2009). Birds of Toronto: A Guide to Their Remarkable World. City of Toronto
Biodiversity Series. Toronto City Planning.
Clark, M., and S. MacArthur. (2007) In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual International Green
Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Minneapolis, April 29 to
May 30th. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
Coffman, R. (2007). Comparing Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity across Green Roof Type. In
Proceedings from the Fifth Annual International Green Roofs Conference: Greening
Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities, Minneapolis, April 29 to May 30th. Toronto: The Cardinal
Group.
Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/ - accessed on August 29th, 2008.
Coppack, T., Pulido, F., and P. Bertold. (2001). Photoperiodic Responses to Early Hatching in
Migratory Bird Species. Oecologia 128: 181-86.
Currie, B.A. (2005). Estimates of Air Pollution Mitigation with Green Roofs Using the UFORE
Model. Masters Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario
Currie, B.A.., and T. McGlade. (2006). Poster Presentation on Green Roofs and Biodiversity. In
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities, Boston, May 11-12 2006.
Design for London. (2008). Living Roofs and Walls: Technical Report Supporting London Plan
Policy. Greater London Authority: London UK.
Dougan & Associates and North-South Environmental. (2008). Migratory Birds of Toronto.
Report for City of Toronto.
Dunevitz Texler, H., and C. Lane. (2007). Species Lists for Terrestrial and Palustrine Native
Plant Communities in East-central Minnesota. Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources and Great River Greening Ecological Strategies, LLC.
http://www.greatrivergreening.org/plant_communities.asp
Dunnett, N. (2006). Green Roofs for Biodiversity: Reconciling Aesthetics with Ecology. In
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities, Boston, May 11-12 2006. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.

36

Dunnett, N., and N. Kingsbury. (2008). Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. 2nd Ed.
Portland:
Timber Press.
Dunnett, N., Nagase, A., and A. Hallam. (2008). The Dynamics of Planted and Colonizing
Species on a Green Roof over Six Growing Seasons 2001-2006: Influence of Substrate
Depth. Urban Ecosystems 11: 373-384.
Durhman, A., Rowe, D., and C. Rugh. (2007). Effect of Substrate Depth on Initial Growth,
Coverage, and Survival of 25 Succulent Green Roof Plant Taxa. Journal of Horticultural
Science 42 (3): 588-595.
Earn, D., Levin, S. and P. Rohani. (2000). Coherence and Conservation. Science 290: 1360-64.
English Nature Reports. (2003). Green Roofs, their Existing Status and Potential for Biodiversity
in Urban Areas.
Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftshaue (FLL). 2002., Guideline for
the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of Green Roof Sites. 2nd Ed. (a German-based, accepted
and adopted guideline for the design, planning, execution and the upkeep of green roof sites).
Gedge, D. (2003). From Rubble to Redstarts. In Proceedings of the First Annual International
Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, May
2003. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
Gedge, D., and G. Kadas (2004). Bugs, Bees and Spiders: Green Roof Design for Rare
Invertebrates. In Proceedings of the Second Annual International Green Roofs Conference:
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Portland, May 2004. Toronto: The
Cardinal
Group.
---. (2005).Green roofs and biodiversity. Biologist 52 (3): 161-169 .
Gilbert, O. (1990). The Lichen Flora of Urban Wasteland. Lichenologist 22: 87-101.
Gong, N. (2007). Green Roofs and Bumblebees: An Observation of Bumblebees on Green
Roofs. Green Roof Centre, University of Sheffield. Master of Architecture Landscape
Studies
Thesis. http://www.thegreenroofcentre.co.uk/pages/mrsGongmasters.pdf
Grabherr, G., Gottfried, M., and H. Pauli. (1994). Climate Effects on Mountain Plants. Nature
331: 428-31.
Grant, G., Engleback, L., and B. Nicholson (2003). Green Roofs: Existing Status and Potential
for Conserving Biodiversity in Urban Areas. English Nature Research Report 498.
Peterborough, U.K.: English Nature.
Grant, G. (2006). Extensive green roofs in London. Journal of Urban Habitats 4 (1): 51-65.
Green Roof Projects, The Green Roofs Project data base
http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=213, accessed September, 2009.

37

Green Roofs For Healthy Cities. (2006). Cook + Fox Architects LLP. From the Greenroof
Projects Database. http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=670.
Hahn, K. (2009). Urban Green Roof Vegetation Assemblage Demography, Classification and
Design Recommendations. Master's Thesis. Ryerson University, Toronto Ontario.
Haile, W. (2009). Green Roofs as Avian Habitat? EEB498 Research Project. University of
Toronto. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
Hannah, L., Lovejoy, T., and S. Schneider. (2005). Biodiversity and Climate Change in Context,
in Climate Change and Biodiversity. Eds. T. Lovejoy and L. Hannah. New Haven, Conn:
Yale University: 3-14.
Hansell, R., and B. Bass (1998). Hollings Figure-Eight Model: A technical Re-evaluation in
Relation to Climate Change and Biodiversity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:
157-68.
Hasnain, S. and M. Gross. (2009). Urban Green Roofs as Emerging Habitat for Arthropod
Biodiversity. (unpublished).
Havens, K. (1999). Pollination Biology: Implications for Rare Plant Conservation. Ecological
Restoration 17: 217-219.
Harvey, P. (2001). The East Thames Corridor; a Nationally Important Invertebrate Fauna under
Threat. British Wildlife 12: 91-98.
Hewitt, G. (1996). Some Genetic Consequences of Ice Ages and their Role in Divergence and
Speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 58: 247-276.
Hogsden, K. and T. Hutchinson. (2004). Butterfly assemblages along human disturbance
gradient in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 739-748.
Hough, M. (2004). Cities & Natural Processes: A Basis for Sustainability. 2nd Ed. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hughes, L. (2000). Biological Consequences of Global Warming. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 15: 56-61.
Janos, D. (1987). VA Mycorrhizas in Humid Tropical Systems, in Ecophysiology of VA
Mycorrhizal Plants. ed. G. Safir. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press, pp. 107-34.
Jenrick, R. (2005). Green Roofs A Horticultural Perspective, London, UK: Living Roofs.org.
Jones, R. (2002). Tecticolous Invertebrates: A Preliminary Investigation of the Invertebrate
Fauna on Green Roofs in Urban London. London: English Nature.
Kadas, G. (2003). Study of Invertebrates on Green Roofs: How Roof Design Can Maximise
Biodiversity in an Urban Environment. Master's Thesis. Royal Holloway, University College,
London.

38

---. (2006). Rare Invertebrates Colonizing Green Roofs in London. Journal of Urban Habitats 4
(1): 66-86.
Klem, D. (2009). Preventing Bird-Window Collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121 (2):
314321.
Kohler, M. (2006). Long-Term Vegetation Research on Two Extensive Green Roofs in Berlin.
Journal of Urban Habitats 4 (1): 3-26.
Levandowski, M. 2006. Urban Weeds and Green Roofs. Poster presentation at the 4th Annual
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show
Boston, MA, USA, 2006. Toronto : The Cardinal Group.
Lovejoy, T. (2005). Conservation with a Changing Climate, in Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Eds. T. Lovejoy and L. Hannah. New Haven, Conn: Yale University: 325-28.
Lundholm, J. (2006). Green Roofs and Facades: A Habitat Template Approach. Urban Habitats
4 (1): 87-101.
MacDonagh, P., Hallyn, N. and S. Rolph. (2007). Midwestern USA Plant Communities + Design
= Bedrock Bluff Prairie Green Roofs. In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual International
Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Minneapolis,
April 29 to May 30th. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Biodiversity
Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
Miller, G. (2008). Report on Biodiversity on the York University Green Roof, 2004-05. Presented
at Roundtable Discussion on Policy for a Green Roof Biodiversity Strategy, Toronto
Botanical
Gardens, February 2008.
Millet, K. (2004). Birds on a Cool Green Roof. Chicago Wilderness Magazine (Summer).
http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/summer2004/greenroof.html.
Moore JC, Sipes J, Whittemore-Olson AA, Hunt HW, Wall DH, d. Ruiter PC and DC Coleman
(2004). Trophic structure and nutrient dynamics of the belowground food web within the
rhizosphere of the shortgrass steppe pgs 248-269. In Lauenroth Wk and Burke IC (eds)
Ecology of the Shortgrass Steppe: Perspectives from Long-term Research. Cambridge UK
Oxford U Press.
Moran, A., Hunt, B. and G. Jennings. (2003). A North Carolina Field Study to Evaluate Green
Roof Runoff Quantity, Runoff Quality and Plant Growth. ASAE (American Society of
Agricultural Engineers). No. 032303. St. Joseph, Michigan.
Morton Arboretum. (2009) Invasive Trees, Shrubs and Vines.
http://www.mortonarb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=867&Itemid=6
accessed September, 2009.
Murray, M. and R. Ceulemans. (1998). Will Tree Foliage be Larger and Live Longer?, in

39

European Forests and Global Change: The Likely Impacts of Rising CO2 and Temperature.
Ed. P. Jarvis. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press: 94-125.
Neotropical Migrant Birds. (2009). www.neotropicalbirds.org; accessed September, 2009.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2008). Interim Report on Ontarios Biodiversity Plan.
www.mnr.gov.on.ca/243480.
Parmesan,C. (2005). Range and Abundance Changes, in Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Eds. T. Lovejoy and L. Hannah. New Haven, Conn: Yale University: 41-55.
Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Descimon H, Huntley B (1999).
Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming.
Nature 399:579-83.
Peuelas, J., and I. Filella. (2001). Changed Plant and Animal Life Cycles from 1952 to 2000 in
the Mediterranean Region. Global Change Biology 8: 531-44.
Revinskaya, N. (2009). Green Roofs Attract Insect Pollinators. EEB498 Research Project.
University of Toronto. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
Root, T., Price, J., Hall, K., Schneider, S., Rosensweig, C. and J. Pounds. (2003). Fingerprints
of Global Warming and Animals and Plants. Nature 421: 57-60.
Schrader, S., and M. Boning. (2006). Soil Formation on Green Roofs and its Contribution to
Urban
Biodiversity with Emphasis on Collembolans. Pedobiologia 50 (4): 347-356.
Smith, J. (2007). Protecting Biodiversity on Green Roofs. In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual
International Green Roofs Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities,
Minneapolis, April 29 to May 30th. Toronto: The Cardinal Group.
Somerville, N. and C. Counts. (2007). Sustainability with Style: The ASLA Headquarters Green
Roof. In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual International Green Roofs Conference: Greening
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Minneapolis, April 29 to May 30th. Toronto: The
Cardinal Group.
Stutchbury, B. (2007). Silence of the Songbirds. Toronto: Harper Collins.
Thomas, C. (2000). Dispersal and Extinction in Fragmented Landscapes. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B 267: 139-45.
Thomas, J. (1993). Holocene Climate Changes and Warm Man-made Refugia May Explain
why
a Sixth of British Butterflies Possess Unnatural Early-successional Habitats. Ecography
16: 278-84.
City of Toronto (2007a). City Planning Division. Toronto Official Plan, by Ted Tyndorf.
Consolidated August 2007. http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_chapter1
5/chapters1_5_aug2007.pdf

40

---. (2007b). City of Torontos Migratory Bird Policies, Bird-Friendly Development Rating
System
and Acknowledgement Program meeting notes http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/
pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-5882.pdf
---. (2006). Policy and Finance Committee. Making Green Roofs Happen. Consolidated clause
in policy and finance committee report 1, which was considered by City Council on Jan 31,
Feb 1 and 2, 2006. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/council/cc060131/
pof1rpt/cl020.pdf.
---. (2009). Green Roofs. By-law No. 583-2009. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2009/
law0583.pdf
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), (2006). Evaluation of an Extensive Green
Roof, York University, Toronto, Ontario. www.sustainabletechnologies.ca
Van Der Heijden, M., Kliromomos, J., Ursic, M., Moutogliss, P., Streitwold-Engel, R., Boller, T.,
Wiemkin, A., and I. Sanders. (1998). Mycorrhizal Fungal Diversity Determines Plant
Biodiversity, Ecosystem Variability and Productivity. Nature 396: 69-72.
Varatharajan, S. (2009). The Impact of Plant Colonizers on Urban Habitats. EEB498 Research
Project. University of Toronto. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
Visser, M., Vannordwijk, A., Tinbergen, J., and C. Lessells. (1998). Warmer Springs Lead to
Mistimed Reproduction in Great Tits (Parus major). Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B 265:1867-70.
Wall, D. (2005). Climate Change and Soils Ecosystems, in Climate Change and Biodiversity.
Eds. T. Lovejoy and L. Hannah. New Haven, Conn: Yale University: 291-95.
Ward, J. and B. Strain. (1999). Elevated CO2 Studies: Past, Present and Future. Tree
Physiology 19:
211-20.
Wilson, E. (1999). The diversity of Life. New York: Norton.
Wilson, E. (2002). The future of life. New York: Knopf.

41

Appendix A
Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species for Ontario include:

garlic mustard
leafy spurge
purple loosestrife (acquatic)
Japanese siltgrass
European buckthorn
dog-strangling vine
glossy buckthorn
phragmites (acquatic)
giant dogweed
giant hogweed (acquatic)
Japanese knotweed
spotted knapweed
Oriental bittersweet
white mulberry
marsh sow thistle
mile-a-minute

Source: Stewardship for Ontario report www.stewardshipcentreontario.on.ca

42