This was a reject with the possibility of sending in a revision as a new submission. One review was short and vague. The other was medium-length. It cited a bunch of papers of historical interest only, suggested additional analyses that weren't on my point, and made a key claim that just wasn't true. The editor's decision was mostly based on a personal reading: the editor wanted the text restructured and key analyses stricken. I disagreed with a lot of the feedback, but my experiences with other ecology journals have been even worse.