SOIL
SOIL
SOIL
Articles | Volume 11, issue 2
Articles | Volume 11, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-755-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-755-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 11, issue 2
Forum article
 | 
02 Oct 2025
Forum article |  | 02 Oct 2025

What if publication bias is the rule and net carbon loss from priming the exception?

Jennifer Michel, Yves Brostaux, Bernard Longdoz, Hervé Vanderschuren, and Pierre Delaplace

Viewed

Total article views: 4,679 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
3,895 615 169 4,679 175 246
  • HTML: 3,895
  • PDF: 615
  • XML: 169
  • Total: 4,679
  • BibTeX: 175
  • EndNote: 246
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Apr 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Apr 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,679 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,646 with geography defined and 33 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Latest update: 11 Aug 2026
Download
Short summary
We discuss three aspects to ensure (rhizosphere) priming effects are correctly perceived in their ecological context and measured at appropriate scales. (i) The first aspect is that there is little empirical evidence for net C losses from priming. (ii) The second aspect is critical publication bias. (iii) The third aspect is a need to distinguish between priming effects (PE) and rhizosphere priming effects (RPE).
Read more
Share