Part of the regional summaries: Chagos Archipelago - Salomon / Blenheim / Speakers Bank and Chagos Archipelago

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.
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.
🗺 Detailed map of the Global Reef Expedition dive sites, Salomon Atoll, Chagos (Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation; opens in a new window)
5 of these 18 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.
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 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.
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 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.
No independent survey was made at this exact site; the nearest ones are listed in the table below.
| Method | Hard-coral cover (%) |
|---|---|
| Transect (published) | 54.4 |
| CoralNet | 51.1 |
| In-house DINOv3 | 49.7 |
| CoralSCOP edited | 29.4 |
| Claude | 51.1 |
| Agency / program | Year(s) | Stations / distance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lange et al. (2021) | 2006–2020 | 1 station, 1.95 km | Records ↓ |
| MERMAID* | 2020 | 1 station, 1.07 km | Records ↓ |
| Sheppard et al. (2008) | 2006 | 1 station, 3.71 km | Records ↓ |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | 2015 | 5 stations, 0.86–4.78 km | Records ↓ |
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.
| Agency | Site / location | Date | Hard coral cover (%) | Distance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lange et al. (2021) | Salomon Atoll | 2006–2020 | 6.8–53% (10 surveys) | 1.95 km | HeatCRD database |
| Sheppard et al. (2008) | Salomon | 2006 | 32% (5 surveys) | 3.71 km | HeatCRD database |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 36013 | 2015 | 28% | 0.86 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 36014 | 2015 | 34% | 1.88 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 36016 | 2015 | 19% | 2.57 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 36018 | 2015 | 22% | 3.11 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 36015 | 2015 | 28% | 4.78 km | — |
| MERMAID* | Salomon 219 | 2020 | 30% (4 surveys) | 1.07 km | MERMAID |
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.