Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB69)

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)
2015-04-16
2015-04-17
2015-05-02
Coordinates
-5.2964, 71.7670
Coral cover
65%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
16.2%
Computer vision (CoralNet), Mayfield & Dempsey (2026); mean of 3 dives
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
33
Site summary

One of Chagos's highest-cover reefs (64.7%): a near-pure stand of table Acropora in the shallows giving way to Echinopora at depth. Dived three times, it recorded bleaching as it happened, rising from 0% on 16 April to 12% the next day and 36.5% by 2 May, with fields of white tables beside still-dark branching stands. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
27.3 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.3°C
+1.2°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
Bottom time
51 min
in at 16:03

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

8 of these 33 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

6101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB69 is a protected submerged lagoonal patch reef inside Peros Banhos; the published site-depth cell is blank, so the reef has no depth on record (e.g., Image 1, Image 4).

General benthic features

Across 25 genera, Acropora holds 70% of all coral and Echinopora is a distant second at 14% (e.g., Image 2, Image 8).

Coral cover

It is one of the highest-cover reefs in the archipelago: 64.7% living coral against 26.0% algae, 5th of 109 Chagos sites for cover and 98th of 109 for algae, among the ten lowest algal covers recorded (e.g., Image 3).

The depth profile is the cleanest handover in the dataset: a near-monospecific tabular Acropora stand at the two shallow strata, 74.5% and 78% cover with Acropora at 96% and 86% of their coral, giving way to a deepest stratum at 45% cover where Echinopora takes over outright at 60% of the coral and Acropora falls to 10.00% of the benthos — though that stratum rests on a single transect (e.g., Image 7, Image 9).

The image cover figures (CoralNet 36.7%, Coralscapes 37.3%) pool April and May frames and so describe neither dive.

Stressors

The site was dived three times, and the canonical % bleaching (2nd training) column tracks the event: 0% on 16 April, 12.05% on 17 April, 36.47% on 2 May, within two points of the highest value anywhere in the dataset. The site-level Mean(%bleaching) cell is blank, so no site rank exists. The May photographs show a mosaic sorted by growth form rather than a uniform whitening — near-continuous fields of white tables, and beside them vast branching stands still in full dark pigment (e.g., Image 5).

No crown-of-thorns, disease, or predation was seen.

Comparisons with other data

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

Survey summary

BIPB69 (Peros Banhos): surveyed 3 times, Apr–May 2015; bleaching rose from 0.0% (mid-April) to 36.5% of coral (early May) as the 2015 bleaching event set in (CoralNet analysis of informal survey images; Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, Oceans). Surveyed during the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation Global Reef Expedition.

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)64.7
CoralNet56.1
In-house DINOv347.4
CoralSCOP edited42.6
Claude39.1

Dive history

Coral bleached: computer-vision (CoralNet) estimate from the survey images, per dive, as published in Mayfield & Dempsey (2026), supplemental file S1.

DateTime inMax depth (m)Bottom time (min)Coral bleached (%)
2015-04-16———0.0
2015-04-17———12.1
2015-05-02———36.5

Data & links

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

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.