Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Eagle Island (BIEA24.5)

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)
2015-03-16
Coordinates
-6.2071, 71.3068
Coral cover
20%
Point-intercept photo analysis (CoralNet) · computer vision below
Coral bleached
27.8%
Observations
Heat stress
Today’s heat load
16 Sep 2026 · No heat stress
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
NOAA Coral Reef Watch — Chagos virtual station
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 (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
4
Site summary

An Eagle Island reef set apart by its color, with Pocillopora colonies in bubblegum pink and deep magenta, a pigment response that can signal stress. Coral death is localized but severe where it occurs, including a branching colony in mid-collapse with a large dead center under sediment-laden turf, and the dive also featured parrotfish and an octopus. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
8.2 m
dive-log maximum

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

Four other CRD dive sites within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.

2 of these 4 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

23

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

General benthic features

Non-coral cover is dominated by crustose coralline algae 16.7%, turf 35.3% of all points.

Coral cover

The 30-point annotation reads it correctly (6.7% live, 13.3% bleached, 63.3% turf); Coralscapes reads the same frame as 22.1% live, 0.15% bleached and 0.10% dead — it scores the skeleton as coral. Assemblage composition. Every number below rests on the 5 analyzed frames. Across 5 analyzed frames the Coralscapes masks put live hard coral at 17.4% of image area, of which massive and meandroid is the largest component at 40.5%; the rest breaks down as Acropora (non-tabular) 20.8%, other hard coral 19.5%, Pocillopora 18.4% of live cover. The independent 30-point human annotation of the same frames (150 points) gives live hard coral as 12.7% of all points and apportions it Porites 42.1%, Acropora 26.3%, Pocillopora 21.1%, other hard coral 10.5% of live coral. Across all 23 frames reviewed my own read is a site mean in the low-to-mid teens: the six reef-scene frames sit at 20–30%, but a third of the set is fauna portraiture and macros over near-bare sand. 19.6% is credible for the coral-bearing pavement, not as a mean over this photo set (e.g., Image 1, Image 4).

Coral cover: 20% — from imagery only, with no transect behind it. This is a ".5" site: informal survey images were annotated in CoralNet, but no formal benthic transect was ever run here. The figure describes the frames that were photographed, not a surveyed reef, and it is not comparable with the transect-derived cover quoted at the numbered sites nearby — it must never be pooled or averaged with them.

Stressors

The color is what distinguishes this reef, and it may be a stress signal. Four macro frames are Pocillopora-type colonies in a striking pigment range — bubblegum-pink (two frames), a wholly cream-and-tan mottled colony with white branch tips, and the best frame at the site: a deep magenta colony and a cream-tan colony growing shoulder to shoulder on the same head. Deep pink and magenta pigmentation in pocilloporids is a documented chromoprotein stress response, not simply a color morph, so these may belong with the stress evidence rather than beside it — Anderson's call, not mine, as at BIDI16.5. Mortality is localized, severe where it occurs, and largely invisible to the models. The reference frame: a branching colony in mid-collapse — bone-white branch clusters at the periphery with corallite texture still sharp, pigmented olive-brown branches among them, and a large central mass wholly dead under gray-green sediment-laden turf. A second frame repeats it unannotated; a third is the erosion frame. Structural loss registers as dead coral 3.3% of image area and rubble 1.5%. Bleaching stands at 5.3% of annotated points, concentrated in other hard coral 4%, Acropora 1.3% of points. No crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) or other corallivores evident.

Fish and other fauna

Faunally the dive is two things: parrotfish and one octopus. Three consecutive frames capture a large parrotfish school (compatible with Chlorurus/Scarus) over near-bare sand, the middle one holding a green-and-pink terminal-phase male; the school returns in a later frame with two Moorish idols (Zanclus cornutus), a bannerfish compatible with Heniochus, and lined surgeonfish compatible with Acanthurus lineatus; powder-blue surgeonfish, electric-blue damselfish, and cleaner wrasse fill out the rest. The site's best animal is misidentified in the existing record: there are three frames of an octopus, compatible with Octopus cyanea — wedged in a crevice with its ribbed pale mantle out, then a portrait with eye and sucker plainly visible, then out on open pavement. Conspicuous fauna appear as sponges in 2 frames, sea cucumbers in 1, anemones in 1; frame-to-frame live cover runs 6.7% to 23.3%.

Comparisons with other data

No independent survey was made at this exact site; the nearest ones are listed in the table below.

Other notes

The current text calls this a gray moray eel across three frames. It is not a moray, and one of those three is not one of its frames.

CV model comparison

Computer vision on this site's own photographs gives In-house DINOv3 point classifier 21%; CoralSCOP 21% — reported alongside rather than merged, because as of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images.
No in-water diver transect was run at this site and the author did not hand-score these photographs, so the headline is the CoralNet value (Anderson, 2026-09-28: manual point count / CoralNet outranks the other methods).
More infoEvery other row is a method run on this site's own photographs (mean ± SD across photos), listed for comparison only; nothing is averaged with the headline. As of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images, so treat these as indicative.
MethodHard-coral cover (%)
CoralNet19.6
In-house DINOv320.7
CoralSCOP edited21.2
Claude15.2

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 (20%) is indistinguishable from the range of these surveys (13%): the 6.6-point gap is inside the ±7 percentage-point noise between methods; 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 range is shown. Station names are not dive-site names.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36003201513%0.14 km—

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from Coral Reef Diagnostics and the organizations named in the data-sources table above.

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.