Coeligena phalerata


To elaborate our model we removed uncertain localities such as those localities with no coordinates and all records with coordinates laying down in sites with estimated elevations below 1,200 m and above 3,301 m. Also one record in ProAves from Jardin (Antioquia), which constitute corrupted information in the database, was deleted.

The habitat suitability model generated in Maxent showed excellent fit to the data, just showing a few pixels suitable in climatic terms for this species off the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in the central north Eastern Andes. Those areas off from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta are not known to be occupied by the species and were deleted from our final potential distribution map.

Assuming that the distribution of the species may have filled the complete climatic model generated, its distribution today in remnants of forest is about 2,323 km2, which corresponds to a loss of 37 % of its potential original distribution due to deforestation.

This species favours edges and secondary vegetation, also can be seen in shade coffee plantations and gardens, and therefore we believe that possibly deforestation has not negatively affected greatly its populations. BirdLife International (2016) has catalogued this hummingbird as of Least Concern (LC) since it is believed it does not approach to the thresholds to be considered Vulnerable (VU) under the range size, population trend or population size criterion. However, this evaluation has a series of pitfalls that must be considered. According to our maps the species has a extent of occurrence of 3,711 km2, which is well below the 20,000 km2 threshold for Vulnerable. Additionally, differently to what is believed in the evaluation of this species the subandean forests part of its range in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta are relatively fragmented and continue being threatened by deforestation and fragmentation. On the other hand, the species is believed to be fairly common and although its population has not been quantified it is assumed it does not approach to the thresholds to be Vulnerable (VU), which is below 10,000 mature individuals (BirdLife International 2016). This is extremely uncertain, assuming a regular occupancy of the extent of occurrence estimated here and if the population is 10,000 individuals the average density will be around 2.7 Individuals/km2, giving that we know the species is fairly common 'locally' maybe this estimation of density may be near the real average density of the species in nature. Until further studies are conducted to understand its dependance on large intact forest tracts and know better its general ecology, and given that its very small range makes it highly vulnerable in biological terms, as a precaution this hummingbird must be reclassified at least as Near Threatened (NT).


Regularized training gain is 5.186, training AUC is 0.998, unregularized training gain is 5.332.

Algorithm converged after 240 iterations (9 seconds).

The follow settings were used during the run:

29 presence records used for training.

10029 points used to determine the Maxent distribution (background points and presence points).

Environmental layers used (all continuous): bio10co bio11co bio12co bio13co bio14co bio15co bio16co bio17co bio18co bio19co bio1co bio2co bio3co bio4co bio5co bio6co bio7co bio8co bio9co

Regularization values: linear/quadratic/product: 0.269, categorical: 0.250, threshold: 1.710, hinge: 0.500

Feature types used: hinge linear quadratic

responsecurves: true

jackknife: true

maximumiterations: 2000

'Equal Training Sensitivity and Specificity' and 'Equate Entropy of Thresholded and Original Distributions' thresholds and omission rates:

5.194-5.509-Cumulative threshold

0.141-0.15-Logistic threshold

0.006-0.006-Fractional predicted area

0.000-0.034-Training omission rate