Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Blenheim (BIBL83)

Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation — Global Reef Expedition
⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Survey date(s)
2015-04-22
Coordinates
-5.2186, 72.4926
Coral cover
33%
± 3.6% SE, n = 16 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
3.0%
Observations
Heat stress
Most recent heat load record
26 Oct 2026 · Bleaching Warning
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
i 5-year mean max. DHW is the mean of the annual maximum DHWs over the five complete years named above, not conditions today.
More infoChagos Archipelago, UK (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
16
Site summary

This Blenheim site (33% coral cover) runs from a dense, structurally complex shallow reef — plating and massive Porites domes, small Acropora, abundant crustose coralline algae — down onto a hazier, lower-relief deep slope. A hawksbill turtle was photographed resting on the reef across several frames, and no crown-of-thorns was seen; published bleaching was low (3.0%), though two of the six colonies Anderson sampled here were partly bleached and one carried new disease. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
30.2 m
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
29.7°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 29.5–30.0°C
+0.6°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
ii Station CTD-cast midpoint, not a dive reading: midpoint of the station's maximum and minimum CTD water temperature (Living Oceans Foundation Chagos station records); range 29.5–30.0°C.
Bottom time
52 min
in at 11:01

One independent survey station shown with the program’s logo — click one to see how far it is from this site.

Site description

Setting

The 16-frame set shows a dive that runs from a dense, structurally complex shallow reef down onto a hazy, lower-relief deeper slope.

General benthic features

The shallow ground is the best of it (e.g., Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, Image 4, Image 6, Image 7, Image 10, Image 15).

It is a mixed, tightly packed reef of cream and tan plating and laminar colonies, honeycomb-textured massives with neat polygonal corallites consistent with Favites or Goniastrea, large smooth tan and olive massive Porites domes (e.g., Image 10, Image 15), meandering-valleyed brain colonies, small digitate and corymbose Acropora in cream with pale tips, mauve and pink Pocillopora, and a great deal of pink and magenta crustose coralline algae with bright red encrusting sponge threaded through it (e.g., Image 1, Image 2, Image 10). Image 7 is the most striking close frame: a very large tan leathery soft coral with thick digitate lobes filling the frame, a fine-textured pale gray tabular plate behind it in the water column, a green wire coral hanging beside it, and fusiliers streaming past overhead. Image 6 looks along the slope through a dense mid-water school of fusiliers over broad plating and tabular colonies. The deeper ground (e.g., Image 5, Image 9, Image 12, Image 13, Image 14, Image 16) is a different reef: hazier, lower in relief, with more sand and pavement between colonies, scattered mounding Porites and faviids, small branching colonies and rubble, and much less of the coralline-crusted framework.

Image 5 looks across open sand with isolated massives; Image 16 is the haziest and shows an extensive low-relief field of small colonies and rubble. Porites was the most common coral genus on this station's transects (7.9% of the benthos), followed by Pocillopora (5.6%), Favia (3.1%), Stylophora (2.9%), Goniastrea (1.8%), and Platygyra (1.7%); bare substrate covered 3.9%, behind other invertebrates (24%), the largest living non-coral group (LOF transects). Among the algal classes, crustose coralline algae led (20% of the benthos), followed by turf (11%) and sediment-laden turf (5.2%).

Coral cover

Stressors

Condition, qualitatively: no obviously bleached, stark-white, or recently dead colonies appear in any of the 16 frames, and there are no disease lesions, no predation scars, no crown-of-thorns seastars, and nothing man-made. Some of the small digitate Acropora in Image 15 is cream with white tips, but at that working distance a photograph cannot separate naturally pale pigmentation from paling, and no bleaching figure is estimated here. Anderson's sampling sheet records two of the six colonies sampled here as 20–30% bleached, one with new disease or mortality, and one with some necrotic tissue (see Dive record below). The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded 0.1% cyanobacteria and under 0.1% recently dead coral.

Fish and other fauna

A hawksbill-type turtle is the subject of four consecutive frames (e.g., Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, Image 4), resting on the reef with a pale, encrusted carapace as Anderson worked around it; those four are turtle portraits as much as habitat frames, though all four carry usable substrate. Fauna beyond the turtle: dense mid-water fusilier schools (e.g., Image 6, Image 7), dark surgeonfishes, damselfishes over the reef, and a dark, densely white-spotted fish resting on the substrate in Image 7 and Image 8 (puffer- or moray-type; the frames do not settle which).

Comparisons with other data

The XL Catlin Seaview Survey covered a nearby station (transect 36020) in 2015, 0.90 km from the pin; we could not confirm that it is the same reef. Within 5 km, one independent station, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36020, 0.90 km away, read 17% in 2015.

Dive record

Blenheim, dived 22 April 2015. Anderson sampled six pocilloporid colonies on this dive for a collaborator (species are field calls; the sampling sheet): Pocillopora sp. ChJo214 (collected 11:15 at 25.4 m; large and healthy, common at all depths, some old mortality), ChJo215 (11:21, 18.9 m; candelabrum morphology, 40% old mortality and 10% new disease or mortality, diseased part sampled), ChJo216 (11:27, 13.5 m; 30% bleached, very pronounced verrucae, bleached part sampled), ChJo217 (11:32, 10.3 m; an enormous colony, 20% bleached, mostly at the outer branch tips, bleached part sampled), and ChJo218 (11:38, 10.3 m; very darkly pigmented, recently toppled, some necrotic tissue), and Pocillopora verrucosa ChJo219 (11:45, 9.3 m; very pale, though likely healthy). The dive notes record murky water with some current along the wall, and no Seriatopora, P. acuta, or P. damicornis at the site. Pocillopora acuta colonies from this archipelago were analyzed in Thomas et al. (2026, Global Ecology and Biogeography 35:e70305, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70305).

Other notes

Image 9 has two divers over that ground, Image 13 a distant turtle in the blue, and Image 11 is open blue water with a single fish and no substrate at all.

What the frames cannot settle: depth is not recoverable frame by frame, so the shallow/deep contrast above is a habitat ordering rather than a measured profile; the haze in the deeper frames limits what can be identified there beyond growth form; and most colonies in this set cannot be taken past genus.

Nearby survey data. Independent survey data within 2 km: XL Catlin Seaview Survey transect 36020 (February 2015) recorded 17% coral cover, 0.90 km away. These are neighboring stations and different methods, not a survey of this site.

CV model comparison

Headline is the transect value; every other row is listed beside it for comparison and none is averaged in. ⚠ The reference here is NOT the same instrument as at Mauritius, Oman, Kenya, or the Red Sea.
More infoThose are point counts on the photographs; this is a diver swimming a transect. The models and the reference never saw the same thing. ⚠ SITE-LEVEL ONLY. None of the Chagos photographs (2,500 frames across all stations) can be matched to a transect taken within 200 m, so transect-vs-image comparisons use site means, never individual frames. The transect value is the mean of all of this station's own transects in the expedition's per-transect benthic data. The transect is THE coral-cover value for this site and stands alone. The rows below it are a methods comparison only: no computer-vision value is averaged with it, feeds the headline, or carries over to the site's cover figure.
MethodHard coral cover (%)Photos (n) ± SE
Transect mean (all transects)32.7
CoralNettoo few photos (n=6)
In-house DINOv324.7*n = 15 · SE 3.0
CoralSCOP edited40.7*n = 15 · SE 4.1
Claude23.8*n = 15 · SE 3.8

The three computer-vision methods disagree by 16.9 pp (23.8–40.7%) and read on both sides of the in-water transect (32.7%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

CoralNet: this method was run on 6 of 15 photos, under the 10 needed for a value, so it is not shown and is left out of any mean; every other row rests on its own photo count.

*Based on only 15 reef-habitat photos; this estimate is less certain.

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 1 independent survey station recorded hard coral cover in 2015. The most recent nearby survey is from 2015, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (33%) sits 16 points above the one nearby survey station (17%); the methods differ, so the comparison is context, not a like-for-like test.

Collected by other programs using different methods (the XL Catlin Seaview Survey uses photo-transects with automated image annotation), so these are context for the figures above, not a like-for-like comparison. Where a station was surveyed more than once, the cell shows either the range of its values or, as a single value, the mean of surveys made in one year. Station names are not dive-site names.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36020201517%0.90 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation Global Reef Expedition, Coral Reef Diagnostics, and the organizations named in the data sources above.

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.

References

  1. Mayfield AB, Dempsey AC (2026). Using tourist diver images to estimate coral cover and bleaching prevalence in a remote Indian Ocean coral reef system. Oceans 7(1):1. PDF
  2. Gonzalez-Rivero M, et al. (2019). Seaview Survey photo-quadrat and image classification dataset. The University of Queensland (UQ eSpace) data collection. DOI