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

Two aspects are discussed for a nuanced and open-ended discussion on both the carbon and the nutrient sides of (rhizosphere) priming effects and their ecological context.
(1) Even in studies reporting exclusively positive priming, net carbon loss is the exception because the experimental carbon inputs usually exceed the amounts of carbon lost through primed and basal respiration (2) Publication bias has led to an over-representation of positive priming in the literature, despite negative and no priming also being common phenomena.