Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Great Chagos Bank West (BIDI10)

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)
2015-03-12
Coordinates
-6.3908, 71.2462
Coral cover
23%
± 4.8% SE, n = 16 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
2.3%
Observations
None tagged; see Stressors below
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
31
Site summary

BIDI10, at Danger Island, carries 23% coral cover in a diverse, low-relief mosaic of digitate Acropora, Pocillopora, massive and plating Porites, and foliose corals. Bleaching was essentially absent, though a lesion was noted on one brain coral, and long-spined urchins were common on the reef pavement (five or more in one frame). Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
22.7 m
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
29.7°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 29.3–30.1°C
+0.8°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (28.9°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 29.3–30.1°C.
Bottom time
62 min
in at 13:44

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

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

30 of the 31 photographs on this page are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

1

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

The site sits on the western Great Chagos Bank off Danger Island and was worked once, on 12 March 2015.

The reef reads as two different bottoms.

General benthic features

One is structural loss: Image 12 is a broad field of standing dead branching skeleton — a collapsed staghorn framework, every branch turf-covered and gray-brown, running out of frame in every direction — with pale rubble-and-pavement patches recurring through (e.g., Image 13, Image 28, Image 34).

The other is a dense, diverse, and healthy living mosaic. Image 3 and Image 35 are the best benthic frames — dense mosaics of lilac and purple digitate Acropora, brown Pocillopora, massive and plating Porites, dark foliose Echinopora or Pavona, yellow-green tabular Acropora and pink crustose coralline algae packed together at low relief, with almost no bare rock between them.

Image 5 and Image 25 are comparable: low-relief pavement packed edge to edge with pink, lilac, and brown digitate colonies, small corymbose tables, mustard to olive massive and lobed mounds, dark ruffled foliose plates, and heavy pink CCA crusts.



Two zones stand apart. Image 33 and Image 34 record a distinctly foliose-dominated zone — gray-brown ruffled leafy plates covering large areas.

Image 2 and Image 31 show enormous yellow-gold plating Porites forming tiered ledges and overhangs several meters across, big enough to shelter fish beneath the plate margin; Image 14 belongs with them and adds a third frame to that gold-plating series.

Macro detail is limited to two frames: Image 17, an extreme close-up of coral polyps with white-tipped nematocyst batteries clearly resolved, and Image 29, a large brown branching colony filling the frame. Image 24 is a large brown meandroid brain.

Porites was the most common coral genus on this station's transects (7.1% of the benthos), followed by Pocillopora (3.1%), Favia (2.9%), the blue coral Heliopora (2.9%), Acropora (1.6%), and Pavona (1.1%); bare substrate covered 12%, behind crustose coralline algae (21%), the largest single living non-coral group (LOF transects; all algae together 57%). Among the algal classes, crustose coralline algae led (21% of the benthos), followed by sediment-laden turf (16%) and turf (12%).

Coral cover

Stressors

Bleaching is not a feature of this frame set: no colony in any of the 31 habitat frames resolves confidently as bleached. Anderson's published per-site % bleached for BIDI10 is 2.3%; it comes from CoralNet analysis of the expedition's survey images (Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, suppl. S1), not from a field estimate. The pale surfaces that do appear in Image 8, Image 13, and Image 34, and the large pale, tiered plating colony in Image 19, read as coralline-crusted pavement or older mortality rather than recent whitening, and the frames cannot settle that distinction at these ranges.

Two other condition signals are logged. Image 24 shows a clean white lesion running across the surface of the brain coral — a band of exposed skeleton with live tissue either side, consistent with disease, predation scarring, or physical damage and not separable from a single frame. Given the dead standing framework in Image 12 and the rubble fields, the long-spined urchins on the open pavement (five or more together in Image 4) are worth recording: they are bioeroders and grazers, and their abundance is a variable in how this reef's framework is being reworked.

Anderson's sampling sheet records one colony sampled here, a Pocillopora eydouxi by field call (ChJo31, 9.5 m) about 2 m across and rare 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). The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded 0.5% cyanobacteria and under 0.1% recently dead coral.

Fish and other fauna

Faunally the site is dominated by planktivores and their predators. Image 21 is the dive's spectacle: a dense wall of tiny silver baitfish — cardinalfishes or silversides — streaming across the reef with dark snappers and a large jack cutting through them, with comparable swarms in Image 10 and Image 15.

Blue fusiliers fill the water column in Image 6, Image 19, Image 20, Image 22, Image 23, and Image 27.

Emperors and snappers school through (e.g., Image 7, Image 16, Image 18, Image 32).

Reef fish include powder-blue surgeonfish (e.g., Image 32, Image 35), parrotfishes (e.g., Image 8), butterflyfishes, and red squirrelfishes and bigeyes. And long-spined urchins are conspicuous — five or more together on open pavement in Image 4, and again around the lesioned brain in Image 24.

Comparisons with other data

Perry et al. (2015) surveyed a nearby station (Danger Island, Great Chagos Bank) in April 2015, 0.22 km from the pin. Within 5 km, two XL Catlin Seaview Survey stations recorded station-year means of 6.3–25% hard coral cover in 2015; the nearest of these, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36002, 1.64 km away, read 25% in 2015.

Other notes

Thirty-one habitat frames exist for BIDI10, all from 12 March 2015; there are no sampled-colony frames. Three frames are not benthic accounts — Image 23 is essentially open water with fusiliers, Image 7 is mostly blue water over distant reef, and Image 17 is an extreme macro — leaving 28 with substrate, of which roughly 22 are genuinely usable for community description. No quadrat, tape, or scale object appears in any frame, so no colony dimension can be measured from them.

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)23.4
CoralNet27.1*n = 13 · SE 3.3
In-house DINOv316.2*n = 13 · SE 3.5
CoralSCOP edited32.9*n = 13 · SE 5.4
Claude22.5*n = 13 · SE 5.2

The four computer-vision methods disagree by 16.7 pp (16.2–32.9%) and read on both sides of the in-water transect (23.4%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

*Based on only 13 reef-habitat photos; this estimate is less certain.

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 2 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 (23%) sits within the range of these station-year means (6.3–25%); 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 36002201525%1.64 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 3600120156.3%1.78 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. Perry CT, Murphy GN, Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Januchowski-Hartley FA, East HK (2015). Remote coral reefs can sustain high growth potential and may match future sea-level trends. Scientific Reports 5:18289. DOI
  3. Gonzalez-Rivero M, et al. (2019). Seaview Survey photo-quadrat and image classification dataset. The University of Queensland (UQ eSpace) data collection. DOI