Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB71)

Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation — Global Reef Expedition
⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Survey date(s)
2015-04-17
Coordinates
-5.2551, 71.8139
Coral cover
62%
± 4.2% SE, n = 9 transects · Benthic surveys
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)
Site summary

A very high-cover (62%) reef built almost entirely of Acropora, with little sediment-laden turf (2.7%). The second story is mortality: dead coral averaged 16% across the transects. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

CTD station depth
18 m
no logged dive; no surveys were done beyond 35 m
Water temp. during survey
30.6°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 30.3–31.0°C
+1.5°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°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 30.3–31.0°C.

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

Site description

General benthic features

BIPB71 is an Acropora reef and very little else. Transect counts put Acropora at 49% of the benthos — 79% of live coral — with Porites 7.0% (11%) a distant second. The remaining nine genera make up under 10% of live coral, as shares of the benthos: Pocillopora 2.0%, Pavona 1.1%, Montipora 1.0%, Favia 0.6%, Platygyra 0.4%, Ctenella 0.3%, Millepora 0.2%, and Stylophora and Symphyllia 0.1% each. Richness is 11 genera; H′ = 0.83, Simpson = 0.36, J′ = 0.34. Very high cover on very few genera. Total algae is 27%, and plain turf dominates it — 17%, 61% of all algae — with CCA 5.0%, sediment-laden turf 2.7%, macroalgae 2.3%, erect 0.7%, cyanobacteria 0.1%. Bare substrate 4.2%, pavement 13%, sand 3.3%, rubble 2.9%, non-coral invertebrates 6.0%.

Coral cover

Stressors

The mortality signal is the second story, and it is not small. Dead coral averages 16% ± 12 SD across the nine transects, and recently dead coral averages 2.0%, with one transect at 12%. Two transects carry 31% and 35% dead coral. Without imagery there is no telling whether that dead coral is storm or predation damage, an Acropora die-back in progress, or the standing skeleton a dense tabular stand always carries. It is the one thing here that the available data cannot resolve. The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded 0.1% cyanobacteria.

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 21–26% hard coral cover in 2015; the nearest, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36010, 1.38 km away, read 26% in 2015.

Other notes

BIPB71 rests on nine transects across two depth strata, 900 points — all 100-point, so no point-weighting issue. Eight transects sit in D3 and only one in D4, so the site is effectively single-depth and the depth profile is untestable (D3 62%, D4 64%).

No underwater photographs from this station are on file.

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Spalding et al. (2025)—2 stations, 3.74 kmRecords ↓
XL Catlin Seaview Survey20153 stations, 1.38–3.00 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 (62%) sits 36 points above the one survey station up to 2 km away (26%); 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 36010201526%1.38 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36009201521%2.03 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36008201521%3.00 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
Spalding et al. (2025)Peros Banhos - Parasol, ocean (NE, 5-10 m)pre-bleaching baseline80% best patch3.74 km—
Spalding et al. (2025)Peros Banhos - Parasol, ocean (NE, 10-15 m)pre-bleaching baseline40%3.74 km—

Data & links

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