Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Great Chagos Bank North (BINI77)

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)
2015-04-20
Coordinates
-5.7059, 72.3241
Coral cover
42%
± 2.3% SE, n = 12 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
16%
Observations
bleachingpossible disease
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
11
Site summary

A sheltered patch reef inside Nelson Island's lagoon, dived to 25.2 m, where 42% coral cover shifts from Acropora in the shallows to Porites at depth over clean, coralline-crusted rock rather than silt. Stark white tables and branching colonies back up a published 16% bleaching figure, and much of the table-coral framework appears to be standing dead. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
25.2 m
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
29.5°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 29.4–29.7°C
+0.5°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.0°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 29.4–29.7°C.
Bottom time
59 min
in at 07:59

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

One other CRD dive site with its own page within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.

7 of the 11 photographs on this page are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

1479

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BINI77 is a protected, submerged patch reef inside Nelson Island's lagoon, surveyed 20 April 2015 on a dive to 25.2 m.

General benthic features

Across 22 genera, Acropora and Porites share the lead at 30% of all coral each. Acropora and Porites were the most common coral genera on this station's transects (13% of the benthos each), followed by Stylophora (3.8%), Pocillopora (3.7%), Favia (2.4%), and Platygyra (1.3%); bare substrate covered 7.2%, behind crustose coralline algae (17%), the largest single living non-coral group (LOF transects; all algae together 38%).

Coral cover

Stressors

Published bleaching is 16%, and the photographs support it unambiguously: a single stark-white table alone in one frame, clustered white plates in another, cream-white branching colonies beside pigmented neighbors (e.g., Image 14, Image 8, Image 15).

Much of the extensive tabular framework appears to be standing dead and coralline-veneered, which would reconcile a photograph full of tables with a transect that puts Porites level with Acropora (e.g., Image 2, Image 13).

No crown-of-thorns was seen, and no disease lesion resolves in the photographs, but Anderson's sheet logs two of the colonies sampled as "bleached/diseased" (possible disease), and all three Seriatopora colonies sampled were more than 90% bleached (see Dive record below). The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded no cyanobacteria and 0.1% recently dead coral.

Comparisons with other data

Apart from the Living Oceans Foundation survey shown here, we found no other surveys at this site as of 2026. Within 5 km, three XL Catlin Seaview Survey stations recorded station-year means of 3.4–17% hard coral cover in 2015; the nearest, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36026, 2.20 km away, read 12% in 2015.

Dive record

Anderson sampled seven colonies on this dive (the sampling sheet; species are field calls): Seriatopora hystrix ChSe93 (collected 08:12 at 24.5 m; small, more than 90% bleached, live tissue still evident, in a patch of Halimeda; all four seriatoporids seen at the site were bleached, dying, or dead), Seriatopora sp. ChSe94 (08:18, 21.5 m; 100% bleached, likely still alive, probably S. hystrix), and ChSe95 (08:26, 22.7 m; 100% bleached, a growth form between S. hystrix and S. aculeata, no live tissue evident, possibly dead); and, for a collaborator, Pocillopora sp. ChJo197 (08:10, 25.1 m; healthy, common at the site), ChJo198 (08:35, 14.5 m; 60% bleached or diseased, bleached part sampled), and ChJo199 (08:45, 10.9 m; severely bleached, 60%, candelabrum morphology, bleached part sampled), and Pocillopora verrucosa ChJo200 (08:53, 11.0 m; 30% bleached or diseased, an unusual morphology, sickly part sampled, live tissue still evident). The dive notes record large plate-like Porites at 15–25 m, numerous dead table Acropora, intense surge at all depths, and no P. acuta 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).

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)41.9
CoralNet29.8*n = 11 · SE 5.4
In-house DINOv326.1*n = 11 · SE 3.3
CoralSCOP edited33.5*n = 11 · SE 3.6
Claude25.7*n = 11 · SE 4.3

The four computer-vision methods differ by 7.8 pp (25.7–33.5%) and read 8.4–16.2 pp below the in-water transect (41.9%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

*Based on only 11 reef-habitat photos; this estimate is less certain.

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 3 independent survey stations 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 (42%) is not compared with these surveys: none lies within 2 km.

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 36026201512%2.20 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36024201517%2.66 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 3602520153.4%3.35 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