Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB112)

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)
2015-05-02
Coordinates
-5.2373, 71.9620
Coral cover
45%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
38.2%
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
15
Site summary

An exposed outer forereef of Peros Banhos surveyed at 32.7 m, with 30 coral genera and Acropora-dominated shallows (45% cover) that hand over to Porites and Montipora deeper down. Bleaching is the headline: the canonical estimate of 38% is the highest of any Chagos site, and photos show meter-scale tables gone bone-white beside pigmented neighbors. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
30.9 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
29.8°C
+0.7°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
Bottom time
54 min
in at 10:47

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

14 of these 15 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

4

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB112 is an exposed, windward emergent fringing forereef outside Peros Banhos at 32.7 m, surveyed 2 May 2015 (e.g., Image 13).

General benthic features

Genus richness is high at 30 genera, 16th of 109, with Acropora holding 45% of all coral and a nineteen-genus tail sharing barely 2.4 points of benthos.

Coral cover

Formal transects recorded 45.0% coral against 40.7% algae — 36th of 109 Chagos sites for cover — on hard, clean substrate where sediment does not settle, turf-plus-sediment reaching only 0.66% (e.g., Image 1, Image 5, Image 7, Image 12, Image 18, Image 19).

The depth profile is an almost complete handover: cover peaks at 56.8% at the shallowest stratum, where Acropora alone holds 75% of the coral, then declines monotonically to just 13% of the coral at the deepest, where Porites (38%) and Montipora (22%) take over. Image methods read 16-18 points below the transects (CoralNet 29.1%, Coralscapes 27.3%). Coral cover: 45%. Live hard coral measured on the in situ benthic transects of the LOF BIOT-1 expedition (Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, Oceans, supplemental S1), against algal cover of 40.7% of the benthos. The transect figure is this site's authoritative cover value; no image-derived product overrides it. Across methods the same reef reads: transects 45% · CoralNet points 29.1% · Coralscapes masks 27.3% (15 frames). These products have different sampling footprints and denominators and should not be averaged.

Stressors

Bleaching is the headline. Under the canonical % bleaching (2nd training) column it reads 38.2%, the highest value recorded at any Chagos site; the site table's Mean(%bleaching) gives 15.9%, the first CoralNet training run, and a point recount gives 12.7% — three sources, unresolved. The photographs sit with the high end: a meter-scale tiered table gone uniformly bone-white beside pigmented neighbors, a cluster of four or more white tables, a completely white plate next to a partially bleached one (e.g., Image 2, Image 3, Image 8, Image 9, Image 11, Image 16).

No disease, predation, or crown-of-thorns was seen; a school of trevally-type jacks was photographed off the wall, and the folder name claims a whale shark that no still supports (e.g., Image 6).

Comparisons with other data

No prior survey data from this site. If you would like to share yours, please email us.

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. The 2,500 frames were not associated with any transect taken within 200 m of them, so transect-vs-image comparisons are site means, never frames. The transect value is already in the pin `cover` field (109 of 112 pins, sourced to the paper's suppl. S1) and is read from there, never re-imported. 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 (Anderson, 2026-09-22).
MethodHard-coral cover (%)
Transect (published)45.0
In-house DINOv344.3
CoralSCOP edited37.7
Claude28.7

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from Coral Reef Diagnostics.

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.