Urosticte ruficrissa


To elaborate our model we removed uncertain localities such as 'Bogota skins', those localities with no coordinates and all records with coordinates laying down in sites with estimated elevations below 878 m and above 2,487 m.

The habitat suitability model generated in Maxent showed areas suitable in climatic terms for this species in the Western Andes, the northern end of the Central Andes and in the central-northern portion of the western slope of the Eastern Andes. Those areas are not known to be occupied by the species and were excluded from the potential distribution map of this hummingbird.

Assuming that the distribution of the species may have filled the complete climatic model generated, its distribution today in remnants of forest is about 16,424 km2, which corresponds to a loss of 46 % of its potential original distribution due to deforestation.

This near-endemic species has been catalogued by BirdLife International (2016) as of Low Concern (LC) because it is believed it does not approach to the thresholds of Vulnerable (VU) according to the range size, population trend or population size criterion. It is considered to be uncommon (McMullan & Donegan 2014, HBW Alive 2016) and its extent of occurrence has been estimated in 201,000 km2 (BirdLife International 2016), which possibly is greater than is true size. Our maps suggest its extent of occurrence just in Colombia is about 30,573 km2. Forested areas have been fairly degraded in its potential original geographical distribution as our analyses suggest. Forest degradation and fragmentation continues along its potential range and therefore we believe it must be considered as Near Threatened (NT) at national level in Colombia.

Records from the western slope of the Central Andes in Rio Blanco (Caldas) need further research since are placed in an unexpected slope.


Regularized training gain is 2.908, training AUC is 0.989, unregularized training gain is 3.526.

Algorithm converged after 700 iterations (71 seconds).

The follow settings were used during the run:

18 presence records used for training.

10018 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: 0.481, categorical: 0.250, threshold: 1.820, 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:

12.152-12.480-Cumulative threshold

0.137-0.142-Logistic threshold

0.056-0.055-Fractional predicted area

0.056-0.056-Training omission rate