Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Salomons Island (BISA91)

Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation โ€” Global Reef Expedition
โฌ‡ Download this page as a report card
05
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Survey date(s)
2015-04-24
Coordinates
-5.3396, 72.2633
Coral cover
52%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
12.4%
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)
2021โ€“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

A back reef inside Salomon lagoon at 18 m in unusually warm water (30.8ยฐC), with 52% coral cover and a different coral in charge at every depth: Acropora, then Goniopora, then Porites, then a deep transect of 77% Montipora. Bleaching was in the worst fifth of Chagos, with bone-white colonies beside pigmented neighbors. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
21.3 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.8ยฐC
+1.7ยฐC vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1ยฐC)
Bottom time
64 min
in at 15:46

Six independent survey stations shown with the programโ€™s logo โ€” click one to see how far it is from this site.

Nine other CRD dive sites within 5ย km shown in orange โ€” click a marker to open its page.

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

12567891112131415161719202324

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BISA91 is a protected emergent back reef inside Salomon lagoon at 18.2 m, surveyed 24 April 2015 in 30.8 degrees C water, nearly a degree warmer than its neighbors.

General benthic features

Across 27 genera the site row looks unusually even, five genera between 7% and 10% of the benthos with no clear leader โ€” but that evenness is an averaging artifact, and it is the site's real finding: each depth stratum is dominated by a different genus. The shallowest is Acropora ground at 22.8% of the benthos, the next hands over entirely to Goniopora at 20.5%, the third to Porites at 20.3%, and the single deepest transect is 77% Montipora with only eight genera; 84% of the site's Montipora figure comes from that one transect and 79% of its Acropora from two. Only Lobophyllia is abundant across the whole profile.

Coral cover

Formal transects recorded 52.4% coral against 36.3% algae โ€” 21st of 109 Chagos sites for cover, 65th for algae โ€” with turf at 14.6% of the benthos and non-coral invertebrates very low at 2.7%. Image methods read 24 to 25 points below the transects (CoralNet 27.2%, Coralscapes 28.5%) and should not be averaged with them. Coral cover: 52%. 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 36.3% 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 52.4% ยท CoralNet points 27.2% ยท Coralscapes masks 28.5% (18 frames). These products have different sampling footprints and denominators and should not be averaged.

Stressors

Bleaching on the canonical % bleaching (2nd training) column is 12.37%, 24th of 110 dives, the worst fifth of the archipelago, and both runs agree. Here the photographs back the model: all 18 frames were reviewed and three show unambiguous colony-scale bleaching โ€” a bone-white branching colony beside a pigmented neighbor, a brilliant white massive colony among pigmented ones, and a large polyp-expanded colony pale over most of its living surface. One colony is tan across half its surface and vivid pink across the other with continuous polyp structure between, reading as a chromoprotein response; the rose-pink masses recurring here were logged as sponges by an earlier reviewer and may instead be Lobophyllia, an identification this rebuild offers but does not settle (e.g., Image 3, Image 4).

No crown-of-thorns or disease.

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. โš  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. โš  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)52.4
CoralNet46.7
In-house DINOv355.6
CoralSCOP edited44.0
Claude40.3

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Lange et al. (2021)2006โ€“20201 station, 1.21 kmRecords โ†“
MERMAID*20201 station, 4.91 kmRecords โ†“
Sheppard et al. (2008)20061 station, 2.83 kmRecords โ†“
XL Catlin Seaview Survey20153 stations, 3.87โ€“4.71 kmRecords โ†“
Hard coral cover over time — this site and every independent station within 5 km. Programs are shown separately because they use different methods at different stations; the lines are not one comparable series.
0%15%30%45%60%200620132020Lange et al. (2021) 2006: 29%Lange et al. (2021) 2010: 43%Lange et al. (2021) 2016: 9.9%Lange et al. (2021) 2019: 14%Lange et al. (2021) 2020: 12%Sheppard et al. (2008) 2006: 32%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 19%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 28%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 34%MERMAID* 2020: 30%Dr. Coral (CRD) 2015: 52%Year-averaged across all programs: no detectable trend (-1.47 pp per year, not separable from zero; 6 years)
Lange et al. (2021) Sheppard et al. (2008) XL Catlin Seaview Survey MERMAID* Dr. Coral (CRD)Year-average (no detectable trend)

Within 5 km, 6 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 17 records between 2006 and 2020. Of the 1 station surveyed in more than one year, 1 declined between their first and latest surveys. The longest record, Salomon Atoll (Lange et al. 2021, 1.21 km away), went from 29% in 2006 to 12% in 2020. The most recent nearby survey is from 2020, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (52%) sits 9.9 points above the range of these surveys (9.9โ€“43%); the methods differ, so the comparison is context, not a like-for-like test.

Collected by other programs using different methods (MERMAID is a data platform: each MERMAID row names the organization that did the survey, and its method is in the row's hover text; the XL Catlin Seaview Survey uses photo-transects with automated image annotation. *Conducted by citizen scientists), 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
Lange et al. (2021)Salomon Atoll2006โ€“20209.9โ€“43% (5 surveys)1.21 kmHeatCRD database
Sheppard et al. (2008)Salomon200632% (5 surveys)2.83 kmHeatCRD database
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36014201534%3.87 kmโ€”
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36013201528%4.18 kmโ€”
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36016201519%4.71 kmโ€”
MERMAID*Salomon 219202030% (4 surveys)4.91 kmMERMAID

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.

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. Lange ID, Benkwitt CE, McDevitt-Irwin JM, Tietjen KL, Taylor B, Chinkin M, et al. (2021). Wave exposure shapes reef community composition and recovery trajectories at a remote coral atoll. Coral Reefs 40:1819-1829. PDF
  3. Sheppard C, Harris A, Sheppard A (2008). Archipelago-wide coral recovery patterns since 1998 in the Chagos Archipelago, central Indian Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 362:109-117. PDF