Exploring perspectives of South African fathers of a child with Down syndrome

A mere glance at a family photograph of the Victorian era leaves little doubt of the position of the figure exuding impervious, authoritarian detachment. Austere, rigid and solemn, it is not hard to guess who cast the shadow over the picture. Arrestingly imposing in his role as backbone of the family, this is the nineteenth century legacy image of the father. However, the last century has seen fatherhood redefine itself and the more liberal, lenient and openly loving figure replaced the strict patriarchal model. In contemporary times, fathers are regularly seen comfortably behind a stroller, outdoors with children on their shoulders, at home tousling with their children, and considerably more involved in school and social events. Unashamedly, fathers have moved toward both acknowledging and displaying a softer paternal image. By definition fatherhood is a decidedly individual concept and a unique experience, involving much more than being the male parent in a family, the family protector, or the provider of paycheques. Although the past decade has seen a surge of research and interest in fatherhood with an increased recognition that the involvement of fathers contribute to the well-being, cognitive growth and social competence of their children, there remains a deficit in research on the experiences, perceptions and involvement of fathers of children diagnosed with Down syndrome. And whilst most of this knowledge base is extrapolated from studies about the mother’s experience, true understanding requires that fathers are studied directly. Mothers and fathers respond differently to the pressure associated with raising a child with Down syndrome and literature supports the common view that men are less likely and easy to engage in therapy than women, are less likely to attend therapy, or seek help for physical or psychological problems. For fathers of any differently abled child, the distance between the idealized fathering experience and the actual one may be enormous. Based upon the patriarchy model of the family, in many conventional homes, the wife and mother is like a thermometer, sensing and reflecting the home’s temperature, whilst the father and husband is like the home’s thermostat, which determines and regulates the temperature. The equilibrium of the father plays an important role in his ‘thermostat settings’ to set the right temperature in the marriage and his family. Having a differently abled child is almost never expected and often necessitates a change in plans as the family members adjust their views of their own future, their future with their child, as well as how they will henceforth operate as a family.Some fathers may experience uncertainty about their parenting role of a child diagnosed with Down syndrome, often resulting in peculiar behaviours of the father. This may include engrossing themselves into their work, hobbies, sport, and so forth, almost abdicating their duty as father; believing that the mother knows best (sometimes using their own lack of knowledge as a cop-out); or, they simply withdraw because the mother takes such complete control of every aspect of the child that the father feels inadequate, superfluous, and peripheral as parent. Each parent grieves the ‘loss’ of the child they expected in their own individual way. However, such a highly emotive situation may be compounded by the following aspects: the undeniable pressure of caring for the differently abled child; the additional financial burden; a waning social life; and, the incapacity to cope emotionally whilst invariably displaying the contrary purely to create the illusion that they are indeed coping. Fathers need to develop strategies and skills to cope with the very real and practical needs of parenting their child with Down syndrome, to furthermore minimize relationship conflict and misunderstanding, and to support their child’s optimal development. How these specific issues are embraced and managed may dramatically influence the peace and harmony of family life as well as the marital relationship. This study explores the perspectives of fathers of a child with Down syndrome to ultimately support this unique journey as they navigate their way through “Down”town Holland, as illustrated in the analogy to follow

The impact on the family dynamic of having a child and sibling with Down syndrome

The raison d'être of my research is simple: it’s about tossing one more starfish back into the surf. Down syndrome is not a disease, nor is it contagious or a death sentence (it only feels that way when you find out for the first time). At the moment of conception, the apprearance of extra genetic material results in a total of 47 chromosomes in every cell. Usually each cell has only 46, thus making an individual with Down syndrome far more like others than different from them. Yet, this extra chromosome presents special circumstances regarding their ability to acquire new skills, be it academic or practical, encompassing a specific learning profile with typical characterisitcs, strengths and weaknesses. Twenty-first century family life is simultaneously challenging and richly rewarding and the expectancy of most families are of a life lived on paved highways with well-marked signs, and rest stops never far apart. Adding an extra chromosome to the luggage sends the family travelling down a vastly different highway instead, not always knowing what is ahead. It’s scary, but in reality even those on the wide smooth roads do not know the future. Echoing the feelings of many parents, Leonard (1992: 5) states, “The trouble is that we have few, if any maps to guide us on the journey or show us how to find the path…” Assumptions from previous decades that used to increase stress associated with rearing a child with Down syndrome would negatively impact on individual family members and the family unit as such. This has made way for the growing consensus that it is not necessarily the norm. Whilst some families have trouble in adapting to the increased stress, other families adjust easier and even thrive. Successful adaptation seems more likely in resilient families who enjoy high levels of parental well-being and strong relationship bonds. Findings of this qualitative research study confirm that unresolved marital strains are more likely to result in divorce as opposed to the birth of their child with Down syndrome. Correspondingly, siblings of children with Down syndrome reported mostly positive impact than negated opportunities to participate in a normal childhood. My motivation for this research was to explore the nature of challenges faced by modern families and to provide mechanisms to facilitate positive adaptation for the family and aid vii inclusion of the child with Down syndrome into school and greater society. Recommendations are also presented for the medical professionals who, ironically, have proved to be the last people parents want to go for support, owing mostly to their decidedly objectionable treatment of parents; as well as the generally uninformed public, who seldom understand or support attempts of parents to include and expose their child to everyday experiences. In conclusion, I summarize: Should it be that I may influence but one person to see persons with Down syndrome for the potential that they hold instead of the associated problems of their condition, this would afford me the satisfaction and contentment knowing that I have succeeded in making a positive contribution to their plight. I would have successfully portrayed the families for the ordinary people they are with anticipations, aspirations and anxieties, but later tasting the elation of being empowered, and the resultant enjoyment and pride of the achievements of their extraordinary “starfish” child. The simple story below explains it all. A little boy was walking on the beach when he noticed scores of starfish washed onto the beach by the previous night’s high tide. He curiously watched as an old man bent down, came up slowly and tossed one starfish after the other into the surf. He went closer to investigate. “Excuse me, sir, what are you doing?” he enquired. The old man said: “I am throwing the starfish back into the ocean before they die, my boy…come, lend a hand”. The boy looked up and down the beach at the hundreds of starfish scattered along the shoreline. “But there’s too many…” said the boy, “it’ll make no difference!” The old man smiled, bent down, picked up another starfish, and carefully tossing it into the clear blue water, he replied, “…It makes a difference to this one…

Climate change impacts on European arable crop yields: Sensitivity to assumptions about rotations and residue management

Most large scale studies assessing climate change impacts on crops are performed with simulations of single crops and with annual re-initialization of the initial soil conditions. This is in contrast to the reality that crops are grown in rotations, often with sizable proportion of the preceding crop residue to be left in the fields and varying soil initial conditions from year to year. In this study, the sensitivity of climate change impacts on crop yield and soil organic carbon to assumptions about annual model re-initialization, specification of crop rotations and the amount of residue retained in fields was assessed for seven main crops across Europe. Simulations were conducted for a scenario period 2040–2065 relative to a baseline from 1980 to 2005 using the SIMPLACE1 framework. Results indicated across Europe positive climate change impacts on yield for C3 crops and negative impacts for maize. The consideration of simulating rotations did not have a benefit on yield variability but on relative yield change in response to climate change which slightly increased for C3 crops and decreased for C4 crops when rotation was considered. Soil organic carbon decreased under climate change in both simulations assuming a continuous monocrop and plausible rotations by between 1% and 2% depending on the residue management strategy

Climate change impacts on European arable crop yields: Sensitivity to assumptions about rotations and residue management

Most large scale studies assessing climate change impacts on crops are performed with simulations of single crops and with annual re-initialization of the initial soil conditions. This is in contrast to the reality that crops are grown in rotations, often with sizable proportion of the preceding crop residue to be left in the fields and varying soil initial conditions from year to year. In this study, the sensitivity of climate change impacts on crop yield and soil organic carbon to assumptions about annual model re-initialization, specification of crop rotations and the amount of residue retained in fields was assessed for seven main crops across Europe. Simulations were con-ducted for a scenario period 2040-2065 relative to a baseline from 1980 to 2005 using the SIMPLACE1 modeling framework. Results indicated across Europe positive climate change impacts on yield for C3 crops and negative impacts for maize. The consideration of simulating rotations did not have a benefit on yield variability but on relative yield change in response to climate change which slightly increased for C3 crops and decreased for C4 crops when rotation was considered. Soil organic carbon decreased under climate change in both simulations assuming a continuous monocrop and plausible rotations by between 1% and 2% depending on the residue management strategy

Modelling food security: Bridging the gap between the micro and the macro scale

Achieving food and nutrition security for all in a changing and globalized world remains a critical challenge of utmost importance. The development of solutions benefits from insights derived from modelling and simulating the complex interactions of the agri-food system, which range from global to household scales and transcend disciplinary boundaries. A wide range of models based on various methodologies (from food trade equilibrium to agent-based) seek to integrate direct and indirect drivers of change in land use, environment and socio-economic conditions at different scales. However, modelling such interaction poses fundamental challenges, especially for representing non-linear dynamics and adaptive behaviours. We identify key pieces of the fragmented landscape of food security modelling, and organize achievements and gaps into different contextual domains of food security (production, trade, and consumption) at different spatial scales. Building on in-depth reflection on three core issues of food security – volatility, technology, and transformation – we identify methodological challenges and promising strategies for advancement. We emphasize particular requirements related to the multifaceted and multiscale nature of food security. They include the explicit representation of transient dynamics to allow for path dependency and irreversible consequences, and of household heterogeneity to incorporate inequality issues. To illustrate ways forward we provide good practice examples using meta-modelling techniques, non-equilibrium approaches and behavioural-based modelling endeavours. We argue that further integration of different model types is required to better account for both multi-level agency and cross-scale feedbacks within the food system.</p

Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 °c on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna

To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 °C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 °C versus 2.0 °C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 °C compared to 1.5 °C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security

Effects of input data aggregation on simulated crop yields in temperate and Mediterranean climates

The modelling exercise for this study was highly supported by partner universities and research institutes in the framework of the MACSUR project and financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF (FKZ 2815ERA01J) in the framework of the funding measure “Soil as a Sustainable Resource for the Bioeconomy – BonaRes”, project “BonaRes (Module B): BonaRes Centre for Soil Research (FKZ BOMA03037514, 031B0026A and 031A608A) and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (BMEL) in the framework of the MACSUR project (FKZ 2815ERA01J). In addition, the relevant co-authors from the partner institutes are separately financed by their respective projects. AV, EC, and EL were supported by The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (220-2007-1218) and by the strategic funding ‘Soil-Water-Landscape’ from the faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). JC thank the INRA ACCAF metaprogramm for funding. KCK, CN, XS and TS were supported by MACSUR2 (FKZ 031B0039C). MK thanks for the funding by the UK BBSRC (BB/N004922/1) and the MAXWELL HPC team of the University of Aberdeen for providing equipment and support for the DailyDayCent simulations. FE acknowledges support by the German Science Foundation (project EW 119/5-1). GRM, TG, and FE thank Andreas Enders and Gunther Krauss (INRES, University of Bonn) for support. The authors also would like to acknowledge the support provided by the BMBF and the valuable comments of the scientists of the Institut für Nutzpflanzenwissenschaften und Ressourcenschutz (INRES), University of Bonn, Germany.Peer reviewedPostprin

Evidence for increasing global wheat yield potential

Wheat is the most widely grown food crop, with 761 Mt produced globally in 2020. To meet the expected grain demand by mid-century, wheat breeding strategies must continue to improve upon yield-advancing physiological traits, regardless of climate change impacts. Here, the best performing doubled haploid (DH) crosses with an increased canopy photosynthesis from wheat field experiments in the literature were extrapolated to the global scale with a multi-model ensemble of process-based wheat crop models to estimate global wheat production. The DH field experiments were also used to determine a quantitative relationship between wheat production and solar radiation to estimate genetic yield potential. The multi-model ensemble projected a global annual wheat production of 1050 ± 145 Mt due to the improved canopy photosynthesis, a 37% increase, without expanding cropping area. Achieving this genetic yield potential would meet the lower estimate of the projected grain demand in 2050, albeit with considerable challenges.Fil: Guarin, Jose Rafael. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Estados Unidos. Columbia University; Estados Unidos. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Martre, Pierre. Institut Agro Montpellier SupAgro; FranciaFil: Ewert, Frank. Universitat Bonn; Alemania. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research; AlemaniaFil: Webber, Heidi. Universitat Bonn; Alemania. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research; AlemaniaFil: Dueri, Sibylle. Institut Agro Montpellier SupAgro; FranciaFil: Calderini, Daniel Fernando. Universidad Austral de Chile; ChileFil: Reynolds, Matthew. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center ; MéxicoFil: Molero, Gemma. KWS; FranciaFil: Miralles, Daniel Julio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Garcia, Guillermo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Slafer, Gustavo Ariel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; Argentina. Universitat de Lleida; España. Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats; EspañaFil: Giunta, Francesco. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche. Istituto Di Scienze Dell Atmosfera E del Clima.; ItaliaFil: Pequeno, Diego N.L.. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; MéxicoFil: Stella, Tommaso. Universitat Bonn; Alemania. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research; AlemaniaFil: Ahmed, Mukhtar. University Of Pakistan; PakistánFil: Alderman, Phillip D.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Basso, Bruno. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Berger, Andres G.. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria;Fil: Bindi, Marco. Università degli Studi di Firenze; ItaliaFil: Bracho-Mujica, Gennady. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Cammarano, Davide. Purdue University; Estados UnidosFil: Chen, Yi. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Dumont, Benjamin. Université de Liège; BélgicaFil: Rezaei, Ehsan Eyshi. Leibniz Institute Of Plant Genetics And Crop Plant Research.; AlemaniaFil: Fereres, Elias. Universidad de Córdoba; EspañaFil: Ferrise, Roberto. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Gaiser, Thomas. Universitat Bonn; AlemaniaFil: Gao, Yujing. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Garcia Vila, Margarita. Universidad de Córdoba; EspañaFil: Gayler, Sebastian. Universidad de Hohenheim; Alemani

Challenges and research gaps in the area of integrated climate change risk assessment for European agriculture and food security

Priorities in addressing research gaps and challenges should follow the order of im­por­tance, which in itself would be a matter of defining goals and metrics of importance, e.g. the extent, impact and likelihood of occurrence. For improving assessments of cli­mate change impacts on agriculture for achieving food security and other sustainable develop­ment goals across the European continent, the most important research gaps and challen­ges appear to be the agreement on goals with a wide range of stakeholders from policy, science, producers and society, better reflection of political and societal prefer­ences in the modelling process, and the reflection of economic decisions in farm manage­ment within models. These and other challenges could be approached in phase 3 of MACSUR