Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Peros Banhos (BIPB76)

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
-5.3377, 71.9806
Coral cover
36%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
22.0%
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
22
Site summary

An exposed Peros Banhos forereef with the least coralline algae of all 109 Chagos sites, where black corals stud the upper slope above an extensive field of large, intact but dead table corals coated in turf and silt, at 36% cover. Bleaching was among the highest in the archipelago (22%), with bone-white tables and branching colonies in at least seven frames. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
21.3 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
52 min
in at 11:01

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.

3 of these 22 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

157891011131416171819202122232425

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BIPB76 is an exposed emergent fringing forereef outside Peros Banhos at 21 m, surveyed 19 April 2015, and two numbers define it.

General benthic features

Across 18 genera, Porites holds 38% of the coral and Acropora 28%. Down the profile cover falls by more than half, 54.5% to 32.2% to 21.0%, and Acropora vanishes as it goes — 28.0% of the benthos at the shallowest station, 2.6% at the next, zero at the deepest, where only four genera are recorded at all. The photographs explain both patterns: below the antipatharian-studded upper slope lies an extensive field of large, intact but dead tabular Acropora plates, coated in turf-and-sediment film rather than coralline crust (e.g., Image 2, Image 4).

Coral cover

Formal transects recorded 35.9% coral against 27.3% algae, but coralline algae is only 2.4% of the benthos — the lowest of all 109 Chagos sites — while fleshy turf is 16.95%, 11th-highest, with bare substrate at 17.9% and non-coral invertebrates at 19.0%. Image methods read some 19 points below the transects (CoralNet 17.0%, Coralscapes 17.1%). Coral cover: 36%. 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 27.3% 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 35.9% · CoralNet points 17% · Coralscapes masks 17.1% (21 frames). These products have different sampling footprints and denominators and should not be averaged.

Stressors

Published bleaching is 22.0%, 6th of 98 on the site table's Mean(%bleaching) column, the first CoralNet training run rather than the canonical % bleaching (2nd training) column — and at least seven frames carry bone-white tables and branching colonies beside fully pigmented neighbors, so the imagery confirms rather than merely permits the figure (e.g., Image 3).

One encrusting colony with a white band running into dead algal surface could not be resolved between tissue loss and bleaching followed by mortality. No crown-of-thorns or diagnostic disease sign 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)35.9
CoralNet29.9
In-house DINOv331.5
CoralSCOP edited29.0
Claude20.9

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 (36%) sits 9.5 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 36011201521%0.16 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36012201526%2.14 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.