Erratum: The role of dung beetles in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cattle farming

Agriculture is one of the largest anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), with dairy and beef production accounting for nearly two-thirds of emissions. Several recent papers suggest that dung beetles may affect fluxes of GHGs from cattle farming. Here, we put these previous findings into context. Using Finland as an example, we assessed GHG emissions at three scales: the dung pat, pasture ecosystem, and whole lifecycle of milk or beef production. At the first two levels, dung beetles reduced GHG emissions by up to 7% and 12% respectively, mainly through large reductions in methane (CH4) emissions. However, at the lifecycle level, dung beetles accounted for only a 0.05–0.13% reduction of overall GHG emissions. This mismatch derives from the fact that in intensive production systems, only a limited fraction of all cow pats end up on pastures, offering limited scope for dung beetle mitigation of GHG fluxes. In contrast, we suggest that the effects of dung beetles may be accentuated in tropical countries, where more manure is left on pastures, and dung beetles remove and aerate dung faster, and that this is thus a key area for future research. These considerations give a new perspective on previous results perspective, and suggest that studies of biotic effects on GHG emissions from dung pats on a global scale are a priority for current research.

1. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock contribute significantly to global warming, and a reduction of this source of emissions is crucial in achieving the goal of mitigating global warming. 2. CO 2 and CH 4 emissions from dung pats were analysed by means of a mesocosm experiment in a Mediterranean ecosystem. The experiment consisted of a total of 30 mesocosms distributed across three treatments: a well‐preserved, undisturbed dung beetle assemblage associated with organic livestock; a dung beetle assemblage that was impoverished as a result of the long‐term use of veterinary medical products; and a control treatment without dung beetles. 3. Corrections related to insect respiration allow researchers to provide more precise measurements of CO 2 emissions from dung, especially in the initial and final phases of dung exposure, when the percentage of CO 2 emitted by dung beetles can become greater than the emissions from the dung pats themselves. 4. The effects of dung beetles on CO 2 and CH 4 emissions are much more accentuated in warm‐temperate conditions than in northern temperate areas previously studied. Mediterranean assemblages remove and spread dung faster and more effectively than do northern dung beetle assemblages characterised by a lower functional richness and beetle abundance and biomass. 5. From a livestock management viewpoint, mesocosms representing areas with impoverished dung beetle assemblages, due to the long‐term use of veterinary medical products, such as ivermectin, emitted 1.6‐ and 2.8‐fold higher total CO 2 and CH 4 , respectively, than mesocosms mimicking sites with untreated livestock.

Cattle farming is a major source of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Recent research suggests that GHG fluxes from dung pats could be affected by biotic interactions involving dung beetles. Whether and how these effects vary among beetle species and with assemblage composition is yet to be established. To examine the link between GHGs and different dung beetle species assemblages, we used a closed chamber system to measure fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from cattle dung pats. Targeting a total of four dung beetle species (a pat-dwelling species, a roller of dung balls, a large and a small tunnelling species), we ran six experimental treatments (four monospecific and two mixed) and two controls (one with dung but without beetles, and one with neither dung nor beetles). In this setting, the overall presence of beetles significantly affected the gas fluxes, but different species contributed unequally to GHG emissions. When compared to the control with dung, we detected an overall reduction in the total cumulative CO2 flux from all treatments with beetles and a reduction in N2O flux from the treatments with the three most abundant dung beetle species. These reductions can be seen as beneficial ecosystem services. Nonetheless, we also observed a disservice provided by the large tunneler, Copris lunaris, which significantly increased the CH4 flux–an effect potentially traceable to the species’ nesting strategy involving the construction of large brood balls. When fluxes were summed into CO2-equivalents across individual GHG compounds, dung with beetles proved to emit less GHGs than did beetle-free dung, with the mix of the three most abundant species providing the highest reduction (-32%). As the mix of multiple species proved the most effective in reducing CO2-equivalents, the conservation of diverse assemblages of dung beetles emerges as a priority in agro-pastoral ecosystems.

Agriculture contributes approximately 14% of greenhouse gases at global scale and 7% at national level. Fertilizer using urea is one of agriculture's activities that produces greenhouse gases. Indonesian government's commitment to reduce greenhouse emission by 26% in 2020 by establishing Rencana Aksi Nasional (National Action Plan) reducing greenhouse gases. In this National Act Plan, agricultural sector is obligated to reduce gas emission by 8 Gg CO2e. This research aims to calculate greenhouse gas emission that is being produced by the using urea fertilizer in Boyolali Regency, as well as its mitigation plan. The result shows that the using organic fertilizer as the substitute of urea fertilizer can reduce greenhouse gas emission. The emission of greenhouse gas from using urea fertilizer in Boyolali Regency in the form of CO2 was 18,386 tons CO2, and in the form of N2O was 42,956 tons CO2e. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gas emission from using organic fertilizer was only in the form of N2O as much as 48,575 tons CO2e. Overall, the use of organic fertilizer can reduce greenhouse gas emission by 12,768 CO2e.

At a time when the US federal government failed to act on climate change, California's success as a subnational climate policy leader has been widely celebrated. However, California's landmark climate law drove a wedge between two segments of the state's environmental community. On one side was a coalition of “market-oriented” environmental social movement organizations (SMOs), who allied with private corporations to advance market-friendly climate policy. On the other side was a coalition of “justice-oriented” environmental SMOs, who viewed capitalist markets as the problem and sought climate policy that would mitigate the uneven distribution of environmental harms within the state. The social movement literature is not well equipped to understand this case, in which coalitional politics helped one environmental social movement succeed in its policy objectives at the expense of another. In this chapter, we draw on legislative and regulatory texts, archival material, and interviews with relevant political actors to compare the policymaking influence of each of these coalitions, and we argue that the composition of the two coalitions is the key to understanding why one was more successful than the other. At the same time, we point out the justice-oriented coalition's growing power, as market-oriented SMOs seek to preserve their legitimacy.

Currently, 80% of conventional energy is used to meet the needs of industry and the general public. Using new, renewable energy from the sun is an effort to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gases (GHG). Al-Jihad Boarding School, an Islamic educational institution with around 1,200 students, is one of the biggest consumers of conventional energy. This study aims to plan photovoltaic solar cells, calculate the amount of power that can be generated, calculate the amount of GHG emission reduction from photovoltaic solar cells and the costs required for installation at Al-Jihad Islamic Boarding School. The planning results were analyzed by adjusting the selection of a 12 KVA inverter, 44 polycrystalline photovoltaic solar cells, and other complementary materials such as cables, MCBs and supports. The amount of power generated from photovoltaic solar cells at the Al-Jihad Islamic Boarding School in Surabaya is 12 kWh. Climate change mitigation efforts by reducing GHG emissions through solar cell photovoltaic planning at the Al-Jihad Islamic Boarding School in Surabaya can reduce CO2 greenhouse gases by 1,200.5 kg, NH4 30.013 kg, and N2O 0.019 kg. The cost required for the installation of photovoltaic solar cells is Rp. 209,850,400.

Agriculture could play a prominent role in U.S. efforts to address climate change if farms and ranches undertake activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. These activities may include shifting to conservation tillage, reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops, changing livestock and manure management practices, and planting trees or grass. The Federal Government is considering offering carbon offsets and incentive payments to encourage rural landowners to pursue these climate-friendly activities as part of a broader effort to combat climate change. The extent to which farmers adopt such activities would depend on their costs, potential revenues, and other economic incentives created by climate policy. Existing Federal conservation programs provide preliminary estimates of the costs of agricultural carbon sequestration.

As we write this editorial in early December 2023, the 28th United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP28), is underway. In the run-up to this event, the UN published its first Global Stocktake report [1]. This summarises the progress made towards the mitigation of global warming since the Paris Agreement of 2015 [2]. It tells us that while this international treaty has had positive impacts on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the rate of progress is likely insufficient to avoid global surface temperatures > 1.5°C above pre-industrial averages, at which point it is thought our capacity to adapt to climate change will be overwhelmed [3]. Many of the recommendations of the report describe various kinds of support that will be needed to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including increased financial investment; more transparent reporting of emissions; and measures to support transition away from fossil fuels [1]. Underpinning much of this transformation is a need for research. In some cases, this relates to the development of new solutions. In others, it relates to finding the best ways to implement existing solutions more widely, with particular attention drawn to the need to ensure that low- and middle-income countries are not left behind. Finally, there is a need to better understand the impacts of current practices and how these can be mitigated. In this environmental supplement of Anaesthesia, 11 commissioned articles offer readers an overview of the latest information about sustainable practices in peri-operative care. Two threads that bind these articles together are: an urgent need for action, considering that we are amid a worsening environmental crisis; and an acknowledgement that our understanding of sustainable peri-operative care remains limited. This puts colleagues in a difficult position; we don't have the option to do nothing, but in the absence of a more complete understanding – and given the complexity of healthcare systems – it is possible we may end up doing the wrong thing or missing an opportunity to do something better. Research into sustainable peri-operative care will reduce the risk of this occurring and given that the environmental crisis constitutes a health emergency [4], this should be a priority for researchers, healthcare professionals and broader society [5]. In this editorial, we summarise the research needs identified by the authors in our supplement, explain the factors that mark out high-quality sustainable healthcare research and direct readers to some of the resources and opportunities to support research in this area. We focus here on the UK, but many of the principles will be applicable worldwide. The environmental impacts of any item or process should be considered in terms of its entire 'life cycle', from extraction of raw materials through to disposal. In terms of the impacts on climate change, this is typically expressed in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, often converted into carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) using a metric called global warming potential (GWP) which integrates how much infrared radiation a gas absorbs and re-emits, and how long it persists in the atmosphere. As such, the GWP is expressed over a certain timeframe – usually 100 years (GWP100). Anaesthesia is one of a relatively small group of healthcare practices in which greenhouse gases are emitted at the point of use. In their articles on the climate science of anaesthesia, Nielsen and Sulbaek Andersen [6] and Slingo and Slingo [7] offer differing views on how we should assess the climate impacts of volatile agents, which are relatively short-lived greenhouse gases. Both articles acknowledge that volatile agents have very small overall climate impacts compared with carbon dioxide, but differ on whether GWP100 is a suitable metric to inform practice and whether choice of volatile agent is a worthwhile target for mitigation. This debate illustrates that there remains uncertainty about how to assess and report the climate impacts of anaesthesia and, perhaps, about where best to focus our efforts. Kanal and Fang remind us that climate change is not the only aspect of the ongoing environmental crisis that requires attention, noting, for example, that simply focusing on CO2e doesn't account for ecotoxicity or plastics pollution [8]. The Stockholm Resilience Centre defines nine 'Planetary Boundaries' (one of which is climate change), within which we must remain if humanity is to be able to meet the needs of generations to come (Fig. 1) [9]. While there are examples of assessments of the environmental impacts of anaesthesia that move beyond greenhouse gases [10], there is a clear need for research that acknowledges the complexity of the planet's systems and avoids so-called 'carbon tunnel vision', focusing only on greenhouse gas impacts because of their (relative) simplicity of quantification. While the environmental impacts of some industries (e.g. steel, aviation) are deemed 'hard to abate', meaning that environmentally responsible transformation would be prohibitively difficult or costly [1], healthcare is generally thought to be open to innovation. Perhaps the most obvious example of innovation is the development of new technologies which aim to reduce waste or improve efficiency. In their review, Ghandi et al. consider volatile capture technology [11], a group of devices that adsorb volatile agents from waste anaesthetic gases. The fluorinated compounds can then be desorbed, purified and (potentially) re-administered to patients. The obvious benefits of this approach include reduced material use to produce volatile anaesthetics and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, while the ability to deactivate energy intensive active scavenging systems may be less obvious but no less valuable [11]. But there may also be downsides; White and Montgomery raise the concern that volatile capture technology may be a distractive intervention that could promote maladaptive behaviours (e.g. if the volatile is being captured, why worry about low flows?) [12], and Ghandi et al. note that while volatile capture technologies all appear to perform efficiently in the laboratory setting, impacts in clinical practice are variable [11]. They outline the 'ideal characteristics' of a volatile capture technology system, and in doing so illustrate that the current technologies fall somewhat short of this aspirational standard. They also propose a series of research priorities which focus on investigating volatile capture technology in real-world scenarios, which would aid understanding of how these technologies could be deployed responsibly. Perhaps less controversial than the adoption of new technologies is optimising the use of established ones. Nitrous oxide has been part of the anaesthetic armamentarium since the mid 1800s, and its role in hastening the onset and offset of slow-acting volatile agents means that it was piped into many operating theatres built when these agents were commonplace. However, since the development of low-solubility volatile agents in the 1990s, and with the rising popularity of total intravenous anaesthesia [13], the clinical use of nitrous oxide has declined. This renders its delivery by complex (and often leaky) manifold and pipeline systems grossly inefficient, with portable cylinders more appropriate in many cases. Chakera et al. report the experiences and impacts of undertaking the Nitrous Oxide Project in three different institutions [14]. Discussion of the challenges encountered illustrates that even when the right thing to do is obvious, there is often a gap in understanding how to encourage individuals and institutions to use drugs, technologies and techniques more responsibly [15]. Perhaps the most positive aspect of making healthcare more environmentally sustainable is that it often results in superior (or, at least, no worse) outcomes for patients, and may also have financial advantages. The so-called 'triple bottom line', comprising environmental, social and financial considerations, is often used as a theoretical model to assess the value of interventions. For example, White and Montgomery point out that the most effective intervention would be to 'move medical funding away from reactive disease-care, towards personalised, preventative healthcare' [12]. If realised, this would result in fewer anaesthetics because healthier people need less surgical healthcare; this is clearly a 'win-win' but is also notoriously difficult to achieve. Perhaps more within our current capabilities is the call by van Hove et al. to invest in 'Getting It Right First Time' (GIRFT), and design out unwarranted variation in healthcare to reduce complications, cancellations and unexpected admissions to critical care, all of which are harmful to patients and the planet [16]. The authors note, however, that there is currently a dearth of information about 'carbon hotspots' in surgical procedures, which hampers our ability to standardise care in an environmentally responsible way. Considering the role of surgical teams in sustainable peri-operative practice, Ledda et al. use the Behaviour Change Wheel model to consider how teams respond to capabilities, opportunities and motivations [17, 18]. They note that behaviour is seldom simply a rational response to information and go on to describe a programme of research informed by behavioural change theory which will focus on three pillars: re-usable operating theatre textiles; anaesthesia; and waste reduction. The Behaviour Change Wheel model has been used recently to help understand why anaesthetists may adopt more sustainable practices, emphasising the growing research interest in the application of behavioural theories in accelerating change towards sustainable peri-operative care [15, 19, 20]. What do patients think about the ongoing efforts to promote sustainability in anaesthesia? In a review written by a team of patient representatives who draw on their own experiences in combination with key policy documents [21, 22], Knagg et al. explain that the sustainable healthcare agenda remains unknown to many patients and members of the public, who, quite understandably, tend to focus on getting better when they encounter healthcare services. But it is also clear that the environment matters to patients and the public, and leaves no doubt that patients expect to be represented in the processes (including the conduct of research) that may lead to changes in their healthcare [23]. A recent report from the World Health Organization highlights the urgent need for research to tackle unanswered questions in climate and health research and, given the required pace of change, to ensure that research carried out in this area is implemented into policy and practice [24]. For sustainability research to be implementable, it should take into consideration healthcare infrastructure and care pathways, as well as resource and logistical constraints [25]. The scalability of research and considering the potential for widespread adoption and application in diverse settings, populations and communities is also integral to the adoption of changing practice. Research conducted in sustainable healthcare should fully incorporate the principles of the triple bottom line. From an environmental perspective, it should reflect not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also the wider complexities of healthcare on the planet. From a social perspective, it should account for the well-documented intersectionality between environmental harms and other health inequalities [26, 27]. Designing research with equality and diversity at its heart is integral to developing meaningful outputs that can be translated to policy decisions and clinical practice. Bringing the patient and public voice into the sustainability agenda for clinical research is also vital in ensuring not only that interventions are acceptable, but that the public are empowered to engage on this topic and become drivers for positive change [5, 23, 28, 29]. There is increasing acknowledgement that the complexities of sustainable healthcare require research that transcends sectors and leverages expertise across disciplines. Interdisciplinary research is therefore a hallmark of quality [30, 31]. Engineering solutions, computer science and behavioural science are all examples of where engaging across sectors to deliver on new interventions in sustainable healthcare research has proven benefit. In addition to the above, the environmental cost of undertaking healthcare research is an important consideration. Adshead et al. estimated the carbon cost of clinical trials registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov database to be 27.5 million tCO2e, equivalent to just under one-third of the total annual carbon emissions of Bangladesh [32]. We must ensure that unnecessary environmental impact is not added through research which, like the rest of healthcare, must strike a balance between environmental responsibility, affordability and quality. General approaches to make research more sustainable include making efficient use of existing evidence and incorporating lower-carbon study design as described in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Carbon Reduction Guidelines [33]. There is a growing body of literature examining sustainability in specific types of research such as the work on low carbon clinical trials and laboratory sustainability [32, 34]. A comprehensive approach to environmentally responsible research would be akin to a life cycle assessment and should encompass the entire research pathway from concept to dissemination. A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust shows the growing amount of resource and support available to researchers [35]. From communities and networks to carbon footprint calculators, there is a wealth of information for researchers to access. Major UK funders of health research are engaged in the topic and the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and NIHR, among others, have signalled their interest in this area through multiple calls and a desire to increase the knowledge base in this area [36-38]. There is no shortage of research gaps in sustainable anaesthesia research, and multiple resources exist to help researchers identify them. Specific to peri-operative care, the Greener Operations James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership set out the top 10 questions according to patients, carers, the public and clinicians, and these have been highlighted and expanded in the recent Greener Surgery Report [5, 39]. Support exists too for specific research design queries. The new NIHR research support service provides advice to developing funding applications within the remit of the NIHR. In addition to general advice on study development and delivery, a new research support service hub delivered by Lancaster University and Partners offers specific advice on sustainable healthcare research and integrating sustainable healthcare principles into research practice. Support for researchers is summarised in Figure 2 (links to resources available in online Supporting Information, Appendix S1). It is clear from the articles in this special supplement that there is no shortage of passion among clinician-researchers, no shortage of opportunity to conduct research and no shortage of positive impacts that can be made. Nevertheless, there is much to do in sustainable peri-operative research with numerous challenges and contradictions: urgent action is needed but information is incomplete [6, 7, 11]; rapid progress has been made and yet operating theatres remain highly resource-intensive [8, 12]; implementation is challenging even when solutions are obvious [14, 16, 17]; 'easy' things can draw focus when sometimes 'difficult' things matter much more [7, 8, 12]; and all of this must be achieved without harming patient care [23]. The Global Stocktake report emphasises the need for investment in research [1] and it is heartening to see that taking place; not just in terms of funds, but in terms of development of expertise and sharing of resources through formal and informal networks. Closing the gaps in sustainable peri-operative research will rely on these collaborative efforts. It is increasingly recognised that sustainability is a 'core outcome' of everything that we do and we encourage researchers to consider the unmet research needs; collaborate across disciplines; and take the opportunities to undertake funded high-quality research in sustainable anaesthesia and peri-operative care. CS is Executive Editor of Anaesthesia Reports, a co-opted member of the Association of Anaesthetists Environment and Sustainability Committee, and the Sustainability Theme Lead for the NIHR Research Support Service Hub delivered by Lancaster University and Partners. SL was previously seconded to NHS England as Chief Sustainability Officer's Clinical Fellow. No external funding and no other competing interests to declare. Appendix S1. Links to online resources to support sustainable healthcare research. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Residues from animal husbandry are one of the major greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources in agriculture. The production of biogas from agricultural residues can reduce GHG emissions through an improved handling of the material streams such as manure storage. Additionally, biogas can substitute fossil energy carriers in the provision of heat, power, and transport fuels. The aim of this work is to estimate the manure potential for biogas production in Germany under the consideration of the farm size of livestock production. In Germany, cattle and pig farming is of major relevance with more than 130,000 farms throughout the country. To unlock the biogas potential of manure, the low energy density of manure, depending on the dry matter content, needs to be considered, meaning that biogas installations need to be built close to the manure production on the farm site. This not only results in a high number of biogas plants, but also due to the wide range of farm sizes in Germany, a huge number of very small biogas plants. Small biogas installations have higher specific investment costs. Together with the relatively low methane yields from manure, costs for power generation would be very high. Co-substrates with higher methane yield can lower the costs for biogas. Thus, the use of a co-substrate could help to use small manure potentials. Biogas plants with the necessary minimum size of 50 kWel installed power could be established at farms representing 12% of all cattle and 16.5% of all pigs respectively in Germany. Using excrement from pigs, farms representing 16.5% of the total amount of pigs could establish a biogas plant. The use of manure in combination with energy crops can increase the size of biogas plants on a farm site significantly. At cattle farms, the share would increase to 31.1% with 40% co-substrate and to 40.8% with 60% co-substrate. At pig farms, the share would increase to 36% if co-substrates were used.

Importance of reducing GHG emissions in power transmission and distribution systems

Climate change has significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems. With slow progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate engineering (or ‘geoengineering’) is receiving increasing attention for its potential to limit anthropogenic climate change and its damaging effects. Proposed techniques, such as ocean fertilization for carbon dioxide removal or stratospheric sulfate injections to reduce incoming solar radiation, would significantly alter atmospheric, terrestrial and marine environments, yet potential side-effects of their implementation for ecosystems and biodiversity have received little attention. A literature review was carried out to identify details of the potential ecological effects of climate engineering techniques. A group of biodiversity and environmental change researchers then employed a modified Delphi expert consultation technique to evaluate this evidence and prioritize the effects based on the relative importance of, and scientific understanding about, their biodiversity and ecosystem consequences. The key issues and knowledge gaps are used to shape a discussion of the biodiversity and ecosystem implications of climate engineering, including novel climatic conditions, alterations to marine systems and substantial terrestrial habitat change. This review highlights several current research priorities in which the climate engineering context is crucial to consider, as well as identifying some novel topics for ecological investigation.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from households and industry by the use of charcoal from sawmill residues in Tanzania

Climate Change and Health: Strengthening the Evidence Base for Policy

Electrified vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs), have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from personal transportation by shifting energy demand from gasoline to electricity. GHG reduction potential depends on vehicle design, adoption, driving and charging patterns, charging infrastructure, and electricity generation mix. We construct an optimization model to study these factors by determining optimal design of conventional vehicles (CVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), PHEVs, and BEVs and optimal allocation of vehicle designs and charging infrastructure in the fleet for minimum lifecycle GHG emissions over a range of scenarios. We focus on vehicles with similar size and acceleration to a Toyota Prius under urban EPA driving conditions. We find that under today’s U.S. average grid mix, the vehicle fleet allocated for minimum GHG emissions includes HEVs and PHEVs with ~30 miles (48 km) of electric range. Allocating only CVs, HEVs, PHEVs, or BEVs will produce 86%, 1%, 0%, or 13+% more life cycle GHG emissions, respectively. Unlike BEVs, PHEVs do consume some gasoline; however, PHEVs can power a large portion of vehicle miles on electrical energy while accommodating infrequent long trips without need for a large battery pack, with its corresponding production and weight implications. Availability of workplace charging for 90% of vehicles optimistically reduces optimized GHG emissions by 0.5%. Under decarbonized grid scenarios, larger battery packs are more competitive and reduce life cycle GHG emissions significantly. Future work will relax modeling assumptions and address life cycle cost and cost-effectiveness of GHG reductions.

Agriculture is one of the largest contributors of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) responsible for global warming. Measurements of gas fluxes from dung pats suggest that dung is a source of GHGs, but whether these emissions are modified by arthropods has not been studied. A closed chamber system was used to measure the fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from dung pats with and without dung beetles on a grass sward. The presence of dung beetles significantly affected the fluxes of GHGs from dung pats. Most importantly, fresh dung pats emitted higher amounts of CO2 and lower amounts of CH4 per day in the presence than absence of beetles. Emissions of N2O showed a distinct peak three weeks after the start of the experiment – a pattern detected only in the presence of beetles. When summed over the main grazing season (June–July), total emissions of CH4 proved significantly lower, and total emissions of N2O significantly higher in the presence than absence of beetles. While clearly conditional on the experimental conditions, the patterns observed here reveal a potential impact of dung beetles on gas fluxes realized at a small spatial scale, and thereby suggest that arthropods may have an overall effect on gas fluxes from agriculture. Dissecting the exact mechanisms behind these effects, mapping out the range of conditions under which they occur, and quantifying effect sizes under variable environmental conditions emerge as key priorities for further research.