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
55%
± 3.2% SE, n = 11 transects · Benthic surveys
Coral bleached
8.8%
Observations
Heat stress
Most recent heat load record
26 Oct 2026 · Bleaching Warning
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
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 Archipelago, UK (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
20
18 shown on this page
Site summary

A high-cover patch reef in the Salomon lagoon near the north-west channel, leeward on Anderson's field sheet (55% coral), with 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
sample-sheet maximum
Water temp. during survey
30.8°Cii
CTD-cast midpoint of 30.0–31.5°C
+1.7°C vs the 2015 mean sea temperature (29.1°C)
ii Station CTD-cast midpoint, not a dive reading: midpoint of the station's maximum and minimum CTD water temperature (Living Oceans Foundation Chagos station records); range 30.0–31.5°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 with their own pages within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.

7 of the 18 photographs on this page are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

467810111214161718

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

BISA97 is a channel patch reef in the Salomon lagoon near the north-west pass, leeward on Anderson's field sheet, surveyed 26 April 2015 on a dive to 15.5 m; the notes describe a murky lagoon site near the channel with high coral cover and diversity, a mix of back-reef and fore-reef corals, and calm water with no current.

General benthic features

Acropora leads at 19% of the benthos — 34% of all coral — but Porites at 11% and Goniopora at 6.4% are substantial, and the fleshy and massive component is well represented: Merulina 4.9%, Goniastrea 3.0%, Lobophyllia 2.5%, Favia 1.7%, Galaxea 0.9%, and Pavona 0.8%. Sixteen further genera fall below 0.5%, including Isopora, Ctenactis, Halomitra, Pachyseris, and Millepora. Bare substrate and coralline algae hold 10% of the benthos each, non-coral invertebrates 9.5%, turf 8.1%, and macroalgae 3.0%. 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 a 9.5% 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

Stressors

Published bleaching is 8.8% (CoralNet analysis of the survey images; Mayfield & Dempsey 2026, suppl. S1), and Anderson's notes record very bad bleaching in P. verrucosa, with almost all colonies at the site badly bleached. One frame shows several compact and thick-branched colonies uniformly cream-white while adjacent colonies retain brown, purple, or green pigmentation (e.g., Image 13).

Another frame centers a very large table colony pale to white across nearly the entire plate (e.g., Image 9).

Other wide frames contain scattered white colonies, including pale tables and compact branches. Anderson's sampling sheet records 11 colonies sampled here at 10.5–15.4 m: five Pocillopora acuta and one P. damicornis by RFLP; two Seriatopora hystrix and one Seriatopora sp. by field call; one P. verrucosa and one Pocillopora sp. sampled for a collaborator (field calls); the condition notes run from healthy to 100% bleached, with some partly dead colonies. Pocillopora acuta colonies from this archipelago were analyzed in Thomas et al. (2026, Global Ecology and Biogeography 35:e70305, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70305). One very large massive colony is partly bleached: its broad upper lobes are cream-white with live tissue, beside tan lobes of the same colony (e.g., Image 15).

The Living Oceans Foundation transects here recorded 0.3% cyanobacteria and no recently dead coral.

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).

Comparisons with other data

Apart from the Living Oceans Foundation survey shown here, we found no other surveys at this site as of 2026. Within 5 km, eight independent stations recorded station-year means of 6.8–63% hard coral cover between 2006 and 2020; the nearest, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 36013, 0.86 km away, read 28% in 2015.

Other notes

Aspect follows Anderson's field sheet (LOF fellowship 2016 workbook: 'channel patch reef', 'leeward'); the expedition's 933-site table classes the station as 'protected' (channel reef). Esri World Imagery (no LOF habitat map covers Salomon atoll; the LOF Chagos habitat map covers only Peros Banhos) puts the pin inside the Salomon lagoon near the north-west pass, consistent with the sheet.

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. None of the Chagos photographs (2,500 frames across all stations) can be matched to a transect taken within 200 m, so transect-vs-image comparisons use site means, never individual frames. The transect value is the mean of all of this station's own transects in the expedition's per-transect benthic data. 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.
MethodHard coral cover (%)Photos (n) ± SE
Transect mean (all transects)55.4
CoralNet51.1*n = 12 · SE 4.3
In-house DINOv349.7*n = 12 · SE 4.7
CoralSCOP edited29.4*n = 12 · SE 4.3
Claude51.1*n = 12 · SE 5.3

The four computer-vision methods disagree by 21.7 pp (29.4–51.1%) and read 4.3–26.0 pp below the in-water transect (55.4%); the headline is the in-water transect because a diver transect is independent of the photographs.

*Based on only 12 reef-habitat photos; this estimate is less certain.

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Lange et al. (2021)2006–20202 stations, 1.95–4.47 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%17%34%51%68%200620132020Lange et al. (2021) 2006: 29%Lange et al. (2021) 2006: 48%Lange et al. (2021) 2010: 43%Lange et al. (2021) 2010: 63%Lange et al. (2021) 2016: 9.9%Lange et al. (2021) 2018: 6.8%Lange et al. (2021) 2019: 14%Lange et al. (2021) 2019: 23%Lange et al. (2021) 2020: 12%Lange et al. (2021) 2020: 21%Sheppard et al. (2008) 2006: 32%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 19%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 22%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 28%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 28%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2015: 34%LOF Global Reef Expedition 2015: 55%Year-averaged across all programs: illustrative only; the programs differ in stations and method, so no trend is claimed (7 years)

Within 5 km, 8 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 20 records between 2006 and 2020. Of the 2 stations surveyed in more than one year, 2 declined (by 17–27 points) between their first and latest surveys. Two stations share the longest span (2006–2020); one, Salomon Atoll (Lange et al. 2021, 1.95 km away), went from 48% in 2006 to 21% in 2020. The most recent nearby survey is from 2020, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (55%) sits within the range of these station-year means up to 2 km away (6.8–63%); 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 cell shows either the range of its values or, as a single value, the mean of surveys made in one year. Station names are not dive-site names.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
Lange et al. (2021)Salomon Atoll2006–20206.8–63% (range of yearly means; 5 records)1.95 kmdoi:10.1007/s00338-021-02184-w
Sheppard et al. (2008)Salomon200632% (5 records)3.71 kmdoi:10.3354/meps07436
Lange et al. (2021)Salomon Atoll2006–20209.9–43% (range of yearly means; 5 records)4.47 kmdoi:10.1007/s00338-021-02184-w
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36013201528%0.86 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36014201534%1.88 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36016201519%2.57 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36018201522%3.11 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 36015201528%4.78 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation Global Reef Expedition, Coral Reef Diagnostics, and the organizations named in the data sources 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
  4. Gonzalez-Rivero M, et al. (2019). Seaview Survey photo-quadrat and image classification dataset. The University of Queensland (UQ eSpace) data collection. DOI