Does it? I'd hope so, and that they're comparing the same varieties of crops. I couldn't follow the paper well enough to tell if they filtered studies based on how well they controlled for those confounding factors.
Metastudies almost universally weight the component studies based on quality. A study that does not control for confounding effects will have a low weight. HTH.
They're great for encouraging and pushing for funding to perform other specific detailed studies.
Not their purpose.
But results from metastudies should not generally be used to influence outside of further scientific study.
Have you ever worked as a scientist?
I’ve only just skimmed the paper, but I think the authors are missing a HUGE confounding variable
They didn't miss it. They've done things for the papers that make up the meta-analysis like grow the same plants in high CO2 and in low CO2 and compared them. It's basic statistical stuff scientists do every week.
A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer