This is a fascinating question, one I ask my students by asking what the difference is between ecology & natural history. My answer may upset many, but for me the key is one uses a scientific method, the other doesn't. That's not to say one is more valuable, but they do differ in culture & practice.

I guess I'm an "other" because I would go for the "make a positive difference" answer. My goals aren't just to inform, and are definitely positive (though positive for whom is a variable question), but otherwise I would have gone for management & policy.

This paper has been on the way for just about a decade: the 1st draft was written 8 years ago - some great pesistence by the fab T. Michael Anderson! Lots of fun to have been working on it wth the likes of @funkyant.bsky.social y.social, @sallyarchibald.bsky.social & @carlastaver.bsky.social etc!

We used data on soil, climate, topography, fire, 🐘 & treecover to identify 5 clusters of ecologicaly similar savannahs. We found that the way the major ecological processes operate in these five can be quite different: e.g. only in hot moist savannahs did we detect a direct impact of fire on trees.

Hope you read this aloud to your fellow passengers.

Fantastic news, Rob, many congratulations!

Congrats to all those involved in the proposal writing!