Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB75)

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)
2015-04-19
Coordinates
-5.3050, 71.9790
Coral cover
44%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
17.4%
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
9
Site summary

An exposed forereef outside Peros Banhos at 31 m built on massive Porites mounds (half the coral) rather than the usual Acropora tables, at 44% cover. Bleaching was among the worst tenth in Chagos (17.4%), with fully white plate colonies and a brain coral gone pale mauve, and the deep sand slope holds gorgonians, black corals, and sponges. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
31.2 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.0°C
+0.9°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
Bottom time
51 min
in at 08:47

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

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

1 of these 9 photographs is shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

23456789

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB75 is an exposed, windward emergent fringing forereef outside Peros Banhos, surveyed 19 April 2015 at 31.0 m.

General benthic features

The assemblage is the departure: across 20 genera, Porites holds 51% of all coral while Acropora, normally the leading genus on an exposed Chagos forereef, manages only 3.0% of the benthos, so the reef's structure is carried by massive mounds rather than tables. Cover almost halves down the profile, from 63.25% at the shallowest transect — where Porites alone is 64% of the coral — to 35.5% and then 33.0%, with Montipora rising to a quarter of the coral at the deepest station.

Coral cover

Formal transects recorded 43.9% coral against a comparatively low 32.8% algae — 38th of 109 Chagos sites for cover, 81st for algae — with coralline algae unusually scarce at 6.8% and non-coral invertebrates taking 17.4% of the benthos. Image methods read lower than the transects — CoralNet 29.6%, Coralscapes 31.4% against 43.9%. Coral cover: 44%. Live hard coral measured on the in situ benthic transects of the LOF BIOT-1 expedition (Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, Oceans, supplemental S1), against algal cover of 32.8% of the benthos. The transect figure is this site's authoritative cover value; no image-derived product overrides it. Across methods the same reef reads: transects 43.9% · CoralNet points 29.6% · Coralscapes masks 31.4% (9 frames). These products have different sampling footprints and denominators and should not be averaged.

Stressors

Published bleaching is 17.4%, and the top-decile rank of 10th of 98 comes off the site table's Mean(%bleaching) column, the first CoralNet training run rather than the canonical % bleaching (2nd training) column. The photographs back it at colony scale: two fully white plating colonies beside pigmented neighbors, lavender-white branch-tip paling in another frame, a whole brain colony gone pale mauve, plus a deep sand-slope frame of gorgonians, black corals, and sponges that explains the invertebrate reading (e.g., Image 1).

No disease or crown-of-thorns was seen.

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)43.9
CoralNet39.2
In-house DINOv342.2
CoralSCOP edited43.7
Claude32.4

Independent surveys nearby

Within 5 km, 2 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 (44%) sits 17.5 points above the range of these surveys (21–26%); 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 36012201526%1.88 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36011201521%3.81 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.