Ghosts of the Techno-Fix Ocean? A Short History of Periphylla periphylla in the Norwegian Fjords

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper's approach to the notion of "future ghosts" (as opposed to "invasive species") is original and very helpful, but more needs to be done to flesh out (or should I say "specter out"?) what the author means by this term.  The overall arc of the paper provides very helpful information about how various governmental agencies and news media habitually approach telling the story of a particular, so-called invasive species' sudden appearance in an ecosystem.  In addition, the introduction and conclusion of the paper provide helpful indications of how the axiological complexity of the emergence of a previously absent species in an ecosystem deserves more discerning narratives and attention.  I just wish the paper itself had provided a bit more of an indication, particularly in regard to the notion of "future ghosts," of how this might at least provisionally play out.  The riffs on telling stories about threatened species and ecosystems that feed on "self-devouring growth" are also quite powerful and helpful and perhaps need to be brought in more concretely in the conclusion.

English is mostly clear and easy to follow. 

Some exceptions:
"angles" instead of "angels" on line 209
"at large" instead of "at larger" on line 273
"fit with" instead of "fit to" on line 329
"Though the" instead of "Thought the" on line 363
"scientists" instead of "scientist" on line 387

Author Response

Thank you for the positive and instructive review and suggestions. I have made following changes in response to your suggestions:
"angles" instead of "angels" on line 209 - changed
"at large" instead of "at larger" on line 273 - changed
"fit with" instead of "fit to" on line 329 - changed
"Though the" instead of "Thought the" on line 363 - changed
"scientists" instead of "scientist" on line 387 - changed
Reviewer comment: Paper's approach to the notion of "future ghosts" (as opposed to "invasive species") is original and very helpful, but more needs to be done to flesh out (or should I say "specter out"?) what the author means by this term:
43-51: I have ‘spectered out’ what I mean by ghosts.
469: I return to the ghosts and explain further.
Reviewer comment: I just wish the paper itself had provided a bit more of an indication, particularly in regard to the notion of "future ghosts," of how this might at least provisionally play out. […] The riffs on telling stories about threatened species and ecosystems that feed on "self-devouring growth" are also quite powerful and helpful and perhaps need to be brought in more concretely in the conclusion:
451-463: I elaborated on techno-fix and self-devouring growth
503-507: I exemplified further to illustrate the dilemmas that appear when ‘future ghosts’ emerge.

GENERAL REMARKS
304-309: I added a new publication that had not been published when I handed in the manuscript about the jellyfish by the Trondheim group. New findings actually show that it might have been in the fjords for much longer. I found this important to add. It shows that labelling a species as ‘invasive’ is not as easy as one would think. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article was a pleasure to read. It follows the trajectory of jellyfish blooms and the capitalist, techno-driven responses with such clarity, all the while maintaining a kind of literary elephant in the room: climate change, which the author foregrounds at the end of the article. This is so very well written. There are a few grammatical errors which will be sorted out in the copy-editing process but otherwise, it would be acceptable to publish as is. My only suggestions/comments are as follows:

68-69: This is rather vague in terms of ethics. I understand that these data were not foregrounded, but were the interviewees made aware of how their data would be used? Was there an institutional ethics process and did this have a bearing on how the data were used?

315-318: This is a good point and while I accept it myself, objectively, it is an assertion. So, it needs to be supported. And it deserves this. This assertion is crucial to the paper so I suggest teasing it out and really strengthening it with a real-world example and/or references. Perhaps Naomi Klein.

382: I love this phrase ‘to eat the problem’

416: and indeed climate change itself is being approached with a techno-fix attitude

430: I like the ‘ghost’ analogy, though I find zombies more apt

451: Not wanting to go all relativist on this but I suggest a cod would be happy with the idea of a jellyfish meeting such a demise

The English is of a high standard.

Author Response

Thank you for the positive and instructive review and suggestions. I have made following changes in response to your suggestions:
68-69: This is rather vague in terms of ethics. I understand that these data were not foregrounded, but were the interviewees made aware of how their data would be used? Was there an institutional ethics process and did this have a bearing on how the data were used?
I understand the concern about ethics. Therefore, I chose not to use any of the data from the interviews in the historical piece, but I wanted to be up-front about the inspiration for the piece as it is a little unusual. The wording was a remnant of an earlier version. All source material is based on already published material like my own, other newspaper articles and scientific publications. I hope this clears things up, but I am happy to discuss this further, if needed.
I made following changes:
35-36: ‘inspired by my journalistic investigation’ instead of ‘and journalistic investigation’.
69: The insights I gained through these interviews inspired me to investigate this case from a historical perspective. (Footnote: I refer to the article)
200-203: Here I use my journalistic investigation as an element in story-telling. I refer to the published newspaper article for reference to the cone-snail business.
315-318: This is a good point and while I accept it myself, objectively, it is an assertion. So, it needs to be supported. And it deserves this. This assertion is crucial to the paper so I suggest teasing it out and really strengthening it with a real-world example and/or references. Perhaps Naomi Klein.
334-346: This is a very good point. I added a section where I addressed some of the example that appear in the work of Klein and Kolbert.
430: I like the ‘ghost’ analogy, though I find zombies more apt: I understand where the zombie idea comes from. But in light of the jellyfish having a value in themselves as living organisms, I think the zombie analogy would do them a disservice. Who would oppose to shredding zombies?
451: Not wanting to go all relativist on this but I suggest a cod would be happy with the idea of a jellyfish meeting such a demise: This is true and it touches the core of the question: ‘Is this jellyfish case a conservation story? And if so, what was supposed to be ‘conserved’ in its wake and for whom?’ In other words: Whom do we prioritize or whose needs are we trying to meet when we make different government decision about ocean management. See changes I
made in 502-506

GENERAL:
304-309: I added a new publication that had not been published when I handed in the manuscript about the jellyfish by the Trondheim group. New findings actually show that it might have been in the fjords for much longer. I found this important to add. It shows that labelling a species as ‘invasive’ is not as easy as one would think.