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: 4,424 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
3,715 551 158 4,424 157 226
  • HTML: 3,715
  • PDF: 551
  • XML: 158
  • Total: 4,424
  • BibTeX: 157
  • EndNote: 226
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Apr 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Apr 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 4,424 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,409 with geography defined and 15 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Saved (final revised paper)

Latest update: 13 May 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