Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Great Chagos Bank North (BINI79)

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
-5.6890, 72.3225
Coral cover
34%
± 3.7% SE, n = 11 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
5.0%
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
25
Site summary

A submerged bank reef (dived to 30.9 m) inside the Nelson Island lagoon, dominated by Acropora with few other genera and heavy fleshy turf, at 34% coral cover. Published bleaching was 5.0%, while the photographs show several stark-white colonies, at least one of them clearly bleached; a whitetip reef shark and dogtooth tuna were seen. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
30.9 m
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
29.8°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 29.8–29.9°C
+0.8°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 29.8–29.9°C.
Bottom time
48 min
in at 13:49

Four 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.

9 of the 25 photographs on this page are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

12345810111214151718192125

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BINI79 is a protected submerged bank reef inside the Nelson Island lagoon, surveyed 20 April 2015 on a dive to 30.9 m (e.g., Image 7, Image 28).

General benthic features

Genus richness is 12 genera, with Acropora holding 63% of all coral and the top five genera 97% of it. Cover peaks sharply at the middle station, 44% against 27% shallow and 25% deep, and at the deepest transect Acropora falls to a third of its mid-depth value while Porites nearly catches it and bare substrate reaches 30%. Acropora was the most common coral genus on this station's transects (21% of the benthos), followed by Pocillopora (4.4%), Porites (3.8%), Favia (1.8%), Stylophora (1.6%), and Galaxea (0.5%).

Coral cover

Stressors

What the data say. Published bleaching is 5.0% (CoralNet analysis of the survey images; Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, suppl. S1); no colonies were sampled here (Anderson's sampling sheet: no Seriatopora, P. acuta, or P. damicornis present).

What Anderson saw. The photographs show stark-white or strongly pale colonies beside pigmented neighbors in five frames (e.g., Image 9, Image 16, Image 20, Image 22, Image 23), including two large tables white at the margins with fouled brown centers; the table in Image 9 is white across its whole surface with its polyp texture intact, so it is bleached rather than dead.

The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded no cyanobacteria and 0.1% recently dead coral.

Fish and other fauna

A whitetip reef shark, dogtooth tuna, and one cushion star were recorded; no crown-of-thorns or disease appears in the photographs (e.g., Image 24, Image 27), although Anderson's field sheet notes “mostly dead coral, COTS outbreak likely, low diversity/cover at 12 m.”

Comparisons with other data

The XL Catlin Seaview Survey covered a nearby station (transect 36026) in 2015, 0.41 km from the pin; we could not confirm that it is the same reef. Within 5 km, four 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, 0.41 km away, read 12% in 2015.

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)33.9
CoralNet19.4*n = 15 · SE 3.7
In-house DINOv321.6*n = 15 · SE 4.4
CoralSCOP edited21.2*n = 15 · SE 4.1
Claude17.9*n = 15 · SE 4.5

The four computer-vision methods agree within 3.7 pp (17.9–21.6%) and read 12.3–16.0 pp below the in-water transect (33.9%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

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

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 4 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 (34%) sits 17 points above the range of these station-year means up to 2 km away (3.4–17%); 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 36026201512%0.41 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36024201517%1.58 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 3602520153.4%1.71 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36027201514%4.83 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