Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB74)

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)
2015-04-18
2015-05-01
Coordinates
-5.2611, 71.9518
Coral cover
62%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
5.3%
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
20
Site summary

One of Chagos's highest-cover reefs (62.4%), a sheltered lagoon patch reef at 26 m that is effectively all Acropora. In April only a handful of tables were white, but an unscored revisit two weeks later showed a visibly worse mosaic of whitened Acropora, Pocillopora, and mushroom corals, with a hawksbill turtle resting on a bed of pale tables. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
25.3 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
50 min
in at 14:21

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

8 of these 20 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

101213141516171819202122

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB74 is a protected submerged lagoonal patch reef inside Peros Banhos at 26 m, and one of the highest-cover reefs in the whole archipelago: 62.4% living coral against 32.0% algae, 7th of 109 Chagos sites, with bare substrate almost absent at 2.2% (e.g., Image 1).

General benthic features

Across 25 genera it is effectively a single-genus reef, Acropora holding 70% of all coral, Pavona the only other genus above 2.3% (e.g., Image 3, Image 8, Image 11).

The depth profile splits that average three ways: the shallowest transect is the mixed one, Acropora under half the coral and Pavona a quarter of it; the middle is a near-monoculture at 71% cover with Acropora at 86%; the deepest brings in Porites and Montipora.

Coral cover

The image cover figures (CoralNet 32.8%, Coralscapes 33.7%) pool both dives and so describe neither.

Stressors

On 18 April published bleaching was 5.35%, in the lower third of the archipelago on the site table's Mean(%bleaching) column, the first CoralNet training run, and the photographs matched — a handful of stark-white tables among pigmented neighbors (e.g., Image 2).

Its 16 reviewed frames show a reef visibly worse, a mosaic of whitened tabular and branching Acropora and wholly white Pocillopora and free-living fungiids, while the dark maroon foliose plates stay fully pigmented throughout (e.g., Image 4, Image 5, Image 9).

No crown-of-thorns or disease in either dive.

Fish and other fauna

A hawksbill turtle was photographed resting on a bed of pale tables.

Comparisons with other data

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

Dive record

The site was dived twice.

Other notes

The 1 May revisit thirteen days later was photographed but never scored: no BIPB74B row exists in any published table, so the correct entry for May bleaching here is "not scored".

Survey summary

BIPB74 (Peros Banhos): surveyed twice, Apr–May 2015; 5.3% of coral bleached at the mid-April baseline (CoralNet analysis of informal survey images; Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, Oceans); revisited 1 May 2015 during the onset of the 2015 bleaching event (photo documentation only). 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)62.4
CoralNet56.0
In-house DINOv348.9
CoralSCOP edited47.1
Claude51.1

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 (%)
2015-04-1814:21—485.3
2015-05-01————

Data & links

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

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.