Crax rubra


To elaborate the habitat suitability model we removed two records from El Limoncito, Cauca in DatAves. The coordinates of this locality lay down at ≈ 2,000 m, which is well above the known altitudinal upper limit of this species (≈ 600 m). Also, coordinates from a few records near the Pacific coastline were moved slightly (centecimals of a degree) to make them fit into the mask of continental Colombia.

The habitat suitability model generated in Maxent showed a few areas that are suitable in climatic terms for this species in the low Cauca, the mid and high Magdalena valley and in the eastern slope of the Eastern Andes. These areas are not known to be occupied by this curassow and were excluded from its potential distribution map.

Assuming that the distribution of the species may have filled the complete climatic model generated, its potential distribution today in remnants of forest is about 56,631 km2, which corresponds to a loss of 46 % of its potential original distribution in the region due to deforestation.


Regularized training gain is 2.304, training AUC is 0.988, unregularized training gain is 3.064.

Algorithm converged after 860 iterations (41 seconds).

The follow settings were used during the run:

23 presence records used for training.

10023 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: 0.385, categorical: 0.250, threshold: 1.770, hinge: 0.500

Feature types used: linear quadratic hinge

responsecurves: true

jackknife: true

maximumiterations: 2000

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


28.701-9.578-Cumulative threshold

0.42-0.117-Logistic threshold

0.043-0.1-Fractional predicted area

0.043-0-Training omission rate