Coral Reef Diagnostics

Chagos Archipelago - Salomons Island (BISA97)

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)
2015-04-26
Coordinates
-5.3168, 72.2373
Coral cover
54%
Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
8.8%
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
18
Site summary

A high-cover Salomon reef (54.4%) with some of the lowest algae in the archipelago and 28 coral genera: Acropora leads in the shallows, while deeper down Porites, Goniopora, and Merulina share the reef. Compact branching colonies, massive heads, and table fields pack the bottom with little open sand. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
15.5 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.8°C
+1.7°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
Bottom time
64 min
in at 14:26

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

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

5 of these 18 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

6789101112131415161718

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

General benthic features

Acropora leads at 20.91% of the benthos — 38% of all coral — but Porites at 10.96% and Goniopora at 5.00% are substantial, and the fleshy and massive component is unusually well represented: Merulina 3.86%, Goniastrea 3.05%, Lobophyllia 2.09%, Favia 1.46%, Galaxea 0.88%, and Pavona 0.75%. Sixteen further genera fall below 0.5%, including Isopora, Ctenactis, Halomitra, Pachyseris, and Millepora. Non-coral invertebrates hold 11.0% of the benthos, bare substrate 10.9%, coralline algae 9.9%, turf 7.4%, and macroalgae 2.8%. The reef has strong local continuity. One frame shows numerous compact branching colonies packed across the substrate with little open sand; two others add large massive and lobate colonies; two more show tables and corymbose fields extending into the middle distance; and another shows the assemblage continuing across a broad shallow surface (e.g., Image 3, Image 5).

Crevices remain between colonies, but living coral occupies much of the visible hard bottom in most frames. The benthic palette includes pink and purple encrusting surfaces, brown foliose growth, small meandroid colonies, and smooth massive heads — the visible counterpart to an 11.0% non-coral invertebrate figure and a genus list this long (e.g., Image 2).

The photographs document a densely packed shallow coral garden with massive heads, tables, foliose forms, and heavy encrustation, plus convincing bleaching in both branching colonies and one large table.

Coral cover

Coral cover is 54% (18th of 109) against 23.7% algae (103rd of 109 — among the least algal reefs in the archipelago), and the assemblage carries 28 non-zero coral genera with no single genus taking more than 38% of the coral. The two transects differ in composition more than in cover. D2 carries 50.8% coral across 21 genera and is the Acropora band — 28.25%, with Porites 11.50% and Goniastrea 3.25%. D3 carries slightly more coral at 58.0% across 22 genera but the order flattens completely: Acropora falls to 13.57% while Porites holds 10.43%, Goniopora rises to 10.00% and Merulina to 7.71%*. Assemblage composition. Formal surveys give 54.4% coral, 23.7% algae, and 11.0% non-coral invertebrates across 28 genera, led by Acropora in the shallow band and shared between Porites, Goniopora, and Merulina in the deeper one.

Stressors

Bleaching is evident across multiple growth forms, and this is the most affected site of the batch at 8.8% (37th of 98). One frame shows several compact and thick-branched colonies uniformly cream-white while adjacent colonies retain brown, purple, or green pigmentation. Another frame centers a very large table-like colony pale to white across nearly the entire plate with intact radial branch texture — an unambiguous, high-confidence case. Other wide frames contain scattered white colonies including pale tables and compact branches, and the recurrence across the sequence supports a genuine site condition rather than one anomalous subject (e.g., Image 4).

Pale massive colonies and isolated branch tips were deliberately not flagged, since natural coloration, bright shallow illumination at 10.6 m and active growth could all contribute. No crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) or other corallivores evident.

Fish and other fauna

Fish use the coral relief heavily. Two frames show schools of small fishes concentrated around a large bommie with larger reef fishes above the structure, and a third shows another school in open blue water beyond the coral field (e.g., Image 1).

These indicate active habitat use but cannot give standardized density, biomass, or richness, and no individual count is inferred from repeated adjacent frames.

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)54.4
CoralNet51.1
In-house DINOv349.7
CoralSCOP edited29.4
Claude51.1

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Lange et al. (2021)2006–20201 station, 1.95 kmRecords ↓
MERMAID*20201 station, 1.07 kmRecords ↓
Sheppard et al. (2008)20061 station, 3.71 kmRecords ↓
XL Catlin Seaview Survey20155 stations, 0.86–4.78 kmRecords ↓
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: 39%Lange et al. (2021) 2010: 53%Lange et al. (2021) 2016: 9.9%Lange et al. (2021) 2018: 6.8%Lange et al. (2021) 2019: 19%Lange et al. (2021) 2020: 17%Sheppard et al. (2008) 2006: 32%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 19%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 22%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 24%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 28%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 28%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 34%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 41%MERMAID* 2020: 30%Dr. Coral (CRD) 2015: 54%Year-averaged across all programs: no detectable trend (-2.13 pp per year, not separable from zero; 7 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, 8 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 24 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, 1.95 km away), went from 39% in 2006 to 17% in 2020. The most recent nearby survey is from 2020, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (54%) is indistinguishable from the range of these surveys (6.8–53%): the 1.5-point gap is inside the ±7 percentage-point noise between methods; 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 Atoll2006–20206.8–53% (10 surveys)1.95 kmHeatCRD database
Sheppard et al. (2008)Salomon200632% (5 surveys)3.71 kmHeatCRD database
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36013201528%0.86 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36014201534%1.88 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36016201519%2.57 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36018201522%3.11 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36015201528%4.78 km—
MERMAID*Salomon 219202030% (4 surveys)1.07 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