email a friend
printable version
Hinde's Pied-babbler Turdoides hindei
BirdLife is updating this factsheet for the 2016 Red List
Please email us with any relevant information

This species is considered Vulnerable because it is known from a small number of locations within a small range, where its habitat is severely fragmented and undergoing continuing clearance (Collar and Stuart 1985). Its small, fragmented population is consequently presumed to be declining.

Taxonomic source(s)
Dowsett, R. J.; Forbes-Watson, A. D. 1993. Checklist of birds of the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions. Tauraco Press, Li
Sibley, C. G.; Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

23 cm. Sturdy, thrush-like bird. Pale and dark forms occur. Pale form is mottled white-and-black on head, neck and breast, sometimes with asymmetrical blotching, belly and vent off-white. Dark form has reduced white 'scaling' on head and breast, with rusty vent, but white belly. Orange-red eyes in adult, brown or dark grey in immature. Similar spp. All other babblers within its range have white or orange-yellow eyes and lack scaling on head and breast. Voice Typical babbler chattering. Hints Often silent for long periods, when difficult to detect and may easily be overlooked. Good areas for this species are around Mukurweini (Nyeri District) and Kianyaga (Embu District) (Bennun and Njoroge 1999). It occurs in groups of 1-11 individuals all year-round, but more typically 2-4 (Njoroge and Bennun 2000, P. Shaw in litt. 2005), and is highly sedentary within a small area.

Distribution and population
Turdoides hindei occurs only in central Kenya. Its range is centred on the foothills of the Aberdares and Mt Kenya, at Mukurweini and Kianyaga respectively, with an outlying population at Meru National Park and the adjacent Nyambeni Hills to the north, Machakos to the south, and Kitui to the south-east (Plumb 1979, Turner 1992, Njoroge and Mutinda 1996, Njoroge et al. 1998, P. Njoroge in litt. 1999, Bennun and Njoroge 1999, Njoroge and Bennun 2000, P. Shaw in litt. 2005, P. Shaw in litt. 2007). Its continued existence at Athi River has not been confirmed recently (P. Njoroge in litt. 1999, P. Shaw in litt. 2005), and it has not been recorded at Nziu since 1932 (Kamiti 2003). Since 1994, it has been recorded from six main sites: Mukurweini; Kianyaga; Mwea National Reserve; Machakos; Kitui; and Meru National Park (P. Shaw in litt. 2005). In addition, 1-2 groups have recently been reported each from Thika (Boy 2003, Kamiti 2003, P. Shaw in litt. 2005), and from Juja, south-east of Thika and close to Ol Donyo Sapuk National Park (Boy 2003, P. Shaw in litt. 2005, P. Shaw in litt. 2006). The subpopulation at Meru NP and adjacent Nyambeni Hills is almost certainly isolated from the rest of the population, while those at Machakos and Kitui are probably isolated from each other and from all other subpopulations to the north (P. Shaw in litt. 2006). Surveys at the six main sites during 1994 and 2000-2001 yielded a minimum population of 665 birds in 157 groups (Shaw et al. 2003, Kamiti 2003, P. Shaw in litt. 2005), with about 77% of these found in the core areas of Mukurweini, Kianyaga and Mwea (Shaw and Musina 2003a, Kamiti 2003). The overall population is estimated to be towards the lower end of 1,500-5,600 individuals (Shaw et al. 2003). There have been no broad-scale estimates of population trend but, given the c. 30-52% contraction in its area of occupancy evident since the mid-1900s (Shaw et al. 2003), its population has almost certainly decreased in the past 30-40 years (P. Shaw in litt. 2005).

Population justification
The total population is estimated to be towards the lower end of 1,500-5,600 individuals, based on surveys in 1994 and 2000-2001. This range is roughly equivalent to 1,000-3,700 mature individuals.

Trend justification
There have been no broad-scale estimates of the population trend but, given the c.30-52% contraction in its area of occupancy evident since the mid-1900s (Shaw et al. 2003), its population has almost certainly decreased in the past 30-40 years (P. Shaw in litt. 2005), probably at a slow to moderate rate. The causes of thicket clearance, the main threat to the species, are on-going, thus the decline is expected to continue.

This species is a group-territorial, cooperative breeder (Shaw and Musina 2003a). In June-July, following the end of the long rains, groups typically comprise 3-4 adults, often accompanied by 1-2 fledglings or immatures (Shaw and Musina 2003a). It occurs in two contrasting habitats: thickets and woodland within semi-arid areas (e.g. Machakos and Mwea); and moist, fertile land largely cleared for agriculture, but with fragments of scrub, mainly of the exotic shrub Lantana camara (Mukurweini and Kianyaga) (Njoroge and Mutinda 1996, Njoroge et al. 1998, Shaw and Musina 2003a). In both situations they are normally found in close proximity to dense vegetation associated with streams and rivers, and are more abundant in higher rainfall (perhaps more invertebrate rich) areas that have retained some thicket cover (Njoroge et al. 1998, Njoroge and Bennun 2000, Shaw and Musina 2003a). At Mukurweini and Kianyaga, abundance was found to increase where thicket cover exceeded 3%, while breeding success improved where thicket cover exceeded 9% (Shaw and Musina 2003a). Nest records peak in March to May and September to October, coinciding with the main periods of rainfall (Shaw and Musina 2003a). Clutches of 2-3 eggs are laid in nests built at 1-3 m, usually in thickets (Njoroge and Mutinda 1996). Productivity generally appears similar to its congeners, with fledglings and immatures together accounting for about 16% and 20% of birds aged during surveys in 2000 and 2001 respectively (Shaw and Musina 2003a, Kamiti 2003).

A rapidly increasing human population and intensive farming within its range mean that remaining patches of thicket are being cleared rapidly, with little land left fallow or unweeded, and the thickets that remain are becoming increasingly fragmented (Njoroge et al. 1998). Thickets may also have been destroyed by rice irrigation and dams along the Tana River. Loss of thicket may have been partly mitigated by the spread of the exotic Lantana camara, which provides thicket cover in previously cleared areas. Its presence has probably slowed the species's decline, and may even have enabled it to colonise or re-colonise intensively farmed land (Njoroge and Bennun 2000). Disturbance during the breeding season may result in low breeding success (Njoroge and Mutinda 1996, Njoroge et al. 1998). Inbreeding and competition from Northern Pied-babblers T. hypoleucus do not appear to be threats to this species, although formerly suspected as such (Njoroge et al. 1998). However, hunting for food is a serious threat in some areas (e.g. Kianyaga) (Njoroge and Mutinda 1996, Njoroge and Bennun 2000). Other potential threats are pesticide use, predation, brood parasitism (from Jacobin Cuckoo Clamator jacobinus) and low genetic diversity (P. Shaw in litt. 2005).

Conservation Actions Underway
The species has been recorded from Mwea National Reserve (P. Njoroge in litt. 1999), and rediscovered in Meru National Park (L. Bennun in litt. 1999, 2000), but only about 8% of birds found during surveys in 1994 and 2000-2001 were recorded in these protected areas (Shaw et al. 2003, Kamiti 2003, P. Shaw in litt. 2005). It is also known from Wajee Camp, a small private sanctuary in the Mukurweini area (L. Bennun in litt. 1999, 2000), which provides a useful extra focus for conservation efforts. A site support-group has been established at Mukurweini, which actively monitors babbler numbers and breeding success within parts of the site, and has carried out a tree-planting initiative (P. Shaw in litt. 2005, Anon 2007). In the species's core range, high agricultural productivity, the pattern of land tenure and a high human population density limit opportunities for statutory site protection (Shaw and Musina 2003a). A draft Species Action Plan has been prepared (Shaw and Musina 2003b), but an Action Plan support group has yet to be convened (P. Shaw in litt. 2005). A survey for the species had been planned at land near Juja, following the confirmation of its presence in 2003 (Boy 2003). Conservation Actions Proposed
Conduct an awareness-raising campaign in agricultural areas of its range, perhaps through local site support-groups for Important Bird Areas (L. Bennun in litt. 1999, 2000, Shaw and Musina 2003a, 2003b). Convene an action plan support group to update and finalise the plan, and to pursue agreed actions (P. Shaw in litt. 2007). Manage a 100 m-wide strip along each watercourse, within which thicket cover is allowed to exceed 10% (in high rainfall areas) or 30% (in low rainfall areas) (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Retain thicket cover near the confluence of watercourses, facilitating dispersion between valleys (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Identifying ways of providing incentives to farmers to help achieve management targets (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Monitor abundance and habitat quality at managed sites, and compare these with matched, unmanaged sites (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Conduct a survey of the Nyambeni Hills, which may support a significant population (P. Shaw in litt. 2007). Search for the species at sites from which it is thought to have been extirpated (Nziu, Athi River and Ol Donyo Sapuk) (Shaw and Musina 2003b). After a suitable interval, re-survey sites surveyed in 2000-2001, to determine trends (P. Shaw in litt. 2007). Determine the impacts of group size on breeding success, and whether recruitment levels at example sites are sufficient to maintain the population (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Determine whether genetic diversity varies between sites, indicating whether some are now effectively isolated, as appears to be the case (P. Shaw in litt. 2007). Assess the feasibility of establishing habitat corridors between sites (Kianyaga and Mukurweini) (Shaw and Musina 2003b). Determine feasibility of re-establishing babbler groups in suitably prepared areas within its former range (e.g. at Runjenges and Chuka, NE of Kianyaga) (Shaw and Musina 2003b).

Anon. 2007. Working with law courts to conserve the Hinde's Babbler. BirdLife Africa Newsletter 10(1): 8.

Bennun, L.; Njoroge, P. 1999. Important Bird Areas in Kenya. Nature Kenya, Nairobi.

Boy, G. 2003. Hinde's find. Swara 26: 26-27.

Collar, N. J.; Stuart, S. N. 1985. Threatened birds of Africa and related islands: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. International Council for Bird Preservation, and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Cambridge, U.K.

Kamiti, A. 2003. A survey of Hinde's Babbler: 2000-01. Kenya Birds 10(1&2): 16-17.

Njoroge, P.; Bennun, L. 2000. Status and conservation of Hinde's babbler Turdoides hindei, a threatened species in an agricultural landscape. Ostrich 71: 69-72.

Njoroge, P.; Bennun, L. A.; Lens, L. 1998. Habitat use by the globally endangered Hinde's Babbler Turdoides hindei and its sympatric relative, the Northern Pied Babbler T. hypoleucus. Bird Conservation International 8: 59-65.

Njoroge, P.; Mutinda, D. 1996. Notes on nesting of Hinde's Babbler Turdoides hindei and Northern Pied Babbler T. hypoleucus in Central Kenya. Ostrich 67: 170-172.

Plumb, W. J. 1979. Observations on Hinde's Babbler. Scopus 3(3): 61-67.

Shaw, P.; Musina, J. 2003. Hinde's Babbler Turdoides hindei: a draft Species Action Plan.

Shaw, P.; Musina, J. 2003. Correlates of abundance and breeding success in the globally threatened Hinde's Babbler (Turdoides hindei) and its congener, northern Pied Babbler (T. hypoleucus). Biological Conservation 114: 281-288.

Shaw, P.; Musina, J.; Gichuki, P. 2003. Estimating change in the geographical range and population size of Hinde's Babbler Turdoides hindei. Bird Conservation International 13: 1-12.

Turner, D. 1992. Threatened birds of Kenya 2: Hinde's Babbler. Kenya Birds 1(2): 46-47.

Further web sources of information
Explore HBW Alive for further information on this species

Search for photos and videos, and hear sounds of this species from the Internet Bird Collection

Text account compilers
Benstead, P., Ekstrom, J., Evans, M., Pilgrim, J., Shutes, S., Starkey, M., Symes, A., Taylor, J.

Bennun, L., Njoroge, P., Shaw, P.

IUCN Red List evaluators
Butchart, S., Taylor, J.

Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2016) Species factsheet: Turdoides hindei. Downloaded from on 24/10/2016. Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2016) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from on 24/10/2016.

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums.

Additional resources for this species

ARKive species - Hinde’s babbler (Turdoides hindei) 0

Key facts
Current IUCN Red List category Vulnerable
Family Timaliidae (Babblers and parrotbills)
Species name author (Sharpe, 1900)
Population size 1000-3700 mature individuals
Population trend Decreasing
Distribution size (breeding/resident) 13,800 km2
Country endemic? Yes
Links to further information
- Additional Information on this species
- Projected distributions under climate change