Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB64)

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)
2015-04-15
Coordinates
-5.4624, 71.8244
Coral cover
31%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
9.5%
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
24
Site summary

A Peros Banhos fringing forereef (31.2% coral against 42.7% algae) that alternates between dense coral thickets and open sand-and-rubble flats, sheltering sweetlips, triggerfish, and anemonefish in their anemones. Several colonies show clear bleaching, including one large table coral almost entirely white. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
29.9 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.0°C
+1.0°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.0°C)
Bottom time
51 min
in at 10:35

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

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB64 is an emergent fringing forereef on Peros Banhos, surveyed at intermediate wave exposure to a maximum depth of 27 m.

General benthic features

Porites is the leading genus at just under 9% of the benthos, followed by Acropora, Pocillopora, and Montipora, and coral cover declines with depth as algae takes over the deeper transects. Photographs show a structurally complex reef alternating between dense coral thickets and open sand-and-rubble flats, with sheltering sweetlips, triggerfish, and anemones hosting anemonefish (e.g., Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, Image 5, Image 6, Image 9, Image 10, Image 12, Image 13, Image 14, Image 18, Image 19, Image 25).

Coral cover

Published surveys recorded 31% live coral cover against a higher 42.7% algal cover, with 9.5% of coral imagery showing signs of bleaching (e.g., Image 8, Image 15, Image 16, Image 20, Image 21, Image 22, Image 24, Image 26, Image 27).

The bleaching percentage is a computer vision figure — CoralNet annotation of the informal survey images, not a diver's field estimate — and human-vs-model agreement is weaker for bleaching (r = 0.40) than for coral cover (r = 0.72). Image-based methods read this reef 14–17 points lower than the transects (CoralNet 14.6%, Coralscapes 16.8%); the three are not interchangeable and should not be averaged (see the full report).

Stressors

Several colonies show clear, colony-scale bleaching consistent with the published figure, including one large table coral photographed almost entirely white (e.g., Image 4, Image 17).

No crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) or other corallivores evident.

Comparisons with other data

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

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)31.2
In-house DINOv326.2
CoralSCOP edited33.3
Claude22.8

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 (31%) is indistinguishable from the range of these surveys (20–29%): the 2.4-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 36005201520%1.50 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36007201529%3.92 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36006201527%4.58 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.