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
33%
± 2.1% SE, n = 13 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
9.5%
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
24
Site summary

A windward fore reef on the south rim of Peros Banhos (33% coral against 41% 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
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.0°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 29.8–30.2°C
+1.0°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 29.8–30.2°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.

Site description

Setting

BIPB64 is a windward fore reef on the south rim of Peros Banhos, dived to a maximum depth of 29.9 m on 15 April 2015; Anderson's notes describe a fairly steep fore-reef wall with mild current and very high coral cover; the transects, which average every depth, give 33%, with cover falling as algae takes over the deeper strata.

General benthic features

Porites is the leading genus at 10% of the benthos, followed by Acropora, Pocillopora, and Montipora, and coral cover declines with depth as algae takes over the deeper strata. 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

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).

Anderson's sampling sheet records three pocilloporid colonies sampled here for a collaborator (species by field call): Pocillopora sp. ChJo167 (20.9 m, bleached and diseased, healthy part sampled); Pocillopora verrucosa ChJo168 (14.9 m, 40% bleached) and ChJo169 (10.8 m, healthy). 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 0.2% cyanobacteria and no 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 independent stations recorded station-year means of 20–29% hard coral cover in 2015; the nearest, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36005, 1.50 km away, read 20% in 2015.

Other notes

Reef type and aspect follow Anderson's field sheet (LOF fellowship 2016 workbook: 'fringing reef', 'windward'); the south rim faces south, into the southeast trades. The LOF habitat map has no reef polygon within 65 m of the pin (nearest 'deep fore reef slope' 125 m); the expedition's 933-site table classes the station as 'intermediate' (fringing reef).

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)33.0
In-house DINOv326.2n = 21 · SE 3.4
CoralSCOP edited33.3n = 21 · SE 3.1
Claude22.8n = 21 · SE 3.6

The three computer-vision methods disagree by 10.5 pp (22.8–33.3%) and read on both sides of the in-water transect (33.0%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Spalding et al. (2025)—2 stations, 4.28 kmRecords ↓
XL Catlin Seaview Survey20153 stations, 1.50–4.58 kmRecords ↓

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 (33%) sits 13 points above the one survey station up to 2 km away (20%); the methods differ, so the comparison is context, not a like-for-like test. 2 further rows in the table have no survey date, so they are listed but not part of this summary.

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. Values above 70% are marked “best patch”: surveys often target the densest coral on a reef, so these may overstate the site as a whole.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36005201520%1.50 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36007201529%3.92 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36006201527%4.58 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
Spalding et al. (2025)Peros Banhos - Vache Marine, lagoon (W, 5-10 m)pre-bleaching baseline80% best patch4.28 km—
Spalding et al. (2025)Peros Banhos - Vache Marine, lagoon (W, 2-3 m)pre-bleaching baseline35%4.28 km—

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. Spalding M, Bourasseau M, et al. (2025). Coral bleaching and mortality in the Chagos Archipelago, 2024. British Indian Ocean Territory Administration report (gray literature). PDF
  3. Gonzalez-Rivero M, et al. (2019). Seaview Survey photo-quadrat and image classification dataset. The University of Queensland (UQ eSpace) data collection. DOI