Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation — Global Reef Expedition
Coral Reef Diagnostics

N. GBR - Green (AUYG37)

Australian Institute of Marine Science
⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Country
Survey date(s)
2014-09-09
Coordinates
-14.6189, 145.6183
Coral cover
24%
Benthic transects+photo-quadrats
Observations
Heat stress
Today’s heat load
3 Oct 2026 · No heat stress
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
NOAA Coral Reef Watch — Northern GBR 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 infoNorthern GBR (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
59
32 shown on this page
Site summary

A shallow, high-energy crest on Yonge Reef where coral cover is built from a confetti of many small colonies, branching, encrusting, and massive, set into pink coralline pavement above a steep drop into deep blue. Fusiliers and sweetlips worked the crest and an empty nautilus shell was an odd find; most coral in the photographs is normally colored, though Anderson noted that needle coral (Seriatopora hystrix) on the 20.5 m transect looked bleached and unhealthy. Surveyed on the Living Oceans Foundation's Global Reef Expedition.

Max. depth dived
22.7 m
dive-log maximum
Sea surface temp. (satellite)
24.8°C
satellite sea surface temperature (SST) on the survey date (NOAA Coral Reef Watch, Northern GBR), not an in-water reading; it is the warmest-pixel (90th percentile) reading in the station area and can run 1–1.5°C above the reef
Bottom time
66 min
in at 09:10

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

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

Site description

Setting

Structure reads clearly in the wide frames. Several look along or down a convex crest that falls away steeply into deep blue (e.g., Image 6, Image 10, Image 14, Image 25, Image 26, Image 30), with the shallow band carrying the densest coral and the visible slope thinning as it drops.

Two more frames run straight down the slope face, an unbroken mosaic of small colonies falling away into deep blue, one with a diver for scale (e.g., Image 5, Image 9).

Frames looking upward (Image 7) show surface light and open water above the drop.

The expedition surveyed Yonge Reef as one of its Green (no-take) reefs; under the GBRMPA Zoning Plan the reef is a Scientific Research Zone (no-take, research by permit) with a Conservation Park Zone on its lee side, and the recorded position lies inside the Scientific Research Zone.

General benthic features

Thirty-three frames from Yonge Reef make the point: this is a shallow, high-energy reef whose coral is built from very many small colonies rather than a few big ones, and the photographs show that texture over and over. The downward and oblique frames (e.g., Image 4, Image 8, Image 13, Image 15, Image 16, Image 17, Image 20, Image 23, Image 24, Image 26, Image 27, Image 29, Image 31) are a dense confetti of corymbose and digitate Acropora, small Pocillopora, low massive faviids, encrusting Montipora-type sheets in blue, green, and rust, and scattered small tables, all set into pink and lilac crustose-coralline pavement with rubble in the interstices.

Image 27 is the densest single frame — a run of tan and orange knobby and digitate colonies with a deep maroon-pink colony at its center — and Image 8 and Image 17 the most instructive, showing how much of the surface between colonies is coralline crust and turf rather than living coral. There is no single dominant growth form: branching, digitate, corymbose, encrusting, and small massive colonies are all present in most frames, along with occasional broader plates (e.g., Image 8, Image 14, Image 19), and the tall finger-like colonies in Image 13 and Image 27 stand out against an otherwise low-relief surface.

On the upper slope, pink, lilac, and cream knobby colonies crowd shoulder to shoulder, with a small pink plate colony among them (e.g., Image 12), and one frame centers on a large tan colony of thick, flattened upright lobes surrounded by smaller branching and massive colonies (e.g., Image 18).

Montiporids and Stylophora held their own at mid-depths, and a patch of Sinularia and stinging hydroids carpeted parts of the reef.

Coral cover

Stressors

Condition, stated qualitatively: the great majority of coral in these frames is normally pigmented. A small number of individual colonies read pale or white — most visibly one plate-like colony (e.g., Image 4) — but a photograph cannot separate bleaching from recent tissue loss or predation, and no extent is estimated here. No crown-of-thorns seastars and no unambiguous disease lesions appear in the set. Anderson's notes record that needle coral (Seriatopora hystrix) on the 20.5 m transect looked bleached and unhealthy; the frames carry no depth, so they neither confirm nor contradict it.

Fish and other fauna

Fish are steady but not dense — schools of blue-and-yellow fusiliers (e.g., Image 2, Image 3), sweetlips and drummer along the crest (e.g., Image 21, Image 22, Image 25, Image 28, Image 31), damsels and small wrasse working the framework.

One frame is a striking exception: an empty chambered nautilus shell lying on the reef (e.g., Image 1).

Comparisons with other data

No other surveys have been conducted at this site to date. Within 5 km, ten independent stations recorded 3.9–66% hard coral cover between 1993 and 2023; the nearest, XL Catlin Seaview Survey at transect 12004, 0.65 km away, read 4.3–7.7% between 2014 and 2017.

Other notes

The survey itself is visible in three frames, which is useful and must not be read as reef structure: two show the PVC quadrat frame laid on the pavement (e.g., Image 11, Image 32), and one shows two divers working a transect line down the slope (e.g., Image 30).

What the frames cannot settle: depth. Nothing in the set carries a readable gauge, so the shallow crest frames cannot be separated from the 9.5-21 m transect band by photograph alone, and the frames should not be treated as a picture of the surveyed depth specifically.

CV model comparison

The LOF Global Reef Expedition in-water transect is THE coral-cover value for this site.
More infoThe photo row below is a methods comparison only: it is never averaged with the transect and never used as the headline. It compares site means only: the photos come from the same survey dive as the transect but not from the same points.
MethodHard-coral cover (%)Photos (n) ± SE
Transect (published)24.3
CoralSCOP edited24.2n = 29 · SE 2.5
Claude (edited photos)25.5n = 29 · SE 2.6

The two computer-vision methods agree within 1.3 pp (24–26%) and read within 1.3 pp of the in-water transect (24%).

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
AIMS LTMP1993–20224 stations, 3.07–4.49 kmRecords ↓
AIMS manta tow1993–20232 stations, 2.21–4.86 kmRecords ↓
Reef Check1998–20021 station, 4.99 kmRecords ↓
XL Catlin Seaview Survey2012–20173 stations, 0.65–4.14 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%199320082023AIMS manta tow 1993: 14%AIMS manta tow 1994: 17%AIMS manta tow 1994: 29%AIMS manta tow 1995: 23%AIMS manta tow 1995: 32%AIMS manta tow 1996: 18%AIMS manta tow 1996: 29%AIMS manta tow 1997: 25%AIMS manta tow 1997: 26%AIMS manta tow 1998: 27%AIMS manta tow 1998: 30%AIMS manta tow 1999: 30%AIMS manta tow 1999: 40%AIMS manta tow 2000: 28%AIMS manta tow 2000: 29%AIMS manta tow 2001: 24%AIMS manta tow 2001: 30%AIMS manta tow 2002: 23%AIMS manta tow 2002: 27%AIMS manta tow 2003: 26%AIMS manta tow 2003: 31%AIMS manta tow 2004: 22%AIMS manta tow 2004: 24%AIMS manta tow 2005: 24%AIMS manta tow 2005: 34%AIMS manta tow 2006: 17%AIMS manta tow 2006: 18%AIMS manta tow 2007: 11%AIMS manta tow 2007: 15%AIMS manta tow 2008: 17%AIMS manta tow 2008: 18%AIMS manta tow 2009: 17%AIMS manta tow 2010: 20%AIMS manta tow 2011: 15%AIMS manta tow 2011: 16%AIMS manta tow 2013: 13%AIMS manta tow 2013: 15%AIMS manta tow 2015: 9.2%AIMS manta tow 2015: 12%AIMS manta tow 2017: 5.5%AIMS manta tow 2019: 8.4%AIMS manta tow 2019: 12%AIMS manta tow 2020: 13%AIMS manta tow 2021: 19%AIMS manta tow 2021: 22%AIMS manta tow 2022: 29%AIMS manta tow 2022: 30%AIMS manta tow 2023: 25%AIMS manta tow 2023: 35%AIMS LTMP 1993: 12%AIMS LTMP 1993: 18%AIMS LTMP 1993: 18%AIMS LTMP 1993: 27%AIMS LTMP 1994: 20%AIMS LTMP 1994: 26%AIMS LTMP 1994: 26%AIMS LTMP 1994: 34%AIMS LTMP 1995: 28%AIMS LTMP 1995: 39%AIMS LTMP 1995: 43%AIMS LTMP 1996: 29%AIMS LTMP 1996: 41%AIMS LTMP 1996: 45%AIMS LTMP 1996: 46%AIMS LTMP 1997: 38%AIMS LTMP 1997: 50%AIMS LTMP 1997: 52%AIMS LTMP 1997: 52%AIMS LTMP 1998: 44%AIMS LTMP 1998: 56%AIMS LTMP 1998: 57%AIMS LTMP 1998: 66%AIMS LTMP 1999: 46%AIMS LTMP 1999: 47%AIMS LTMP 1999: 51%AIMS LTMP 1999: 58%AIMS LTMP 2000: 48%AIMS LTMP 2000: 51%AIMS LTMP 2000: 53%AIMS LTMP 2000: 55%AIMS LTMP 2001: 51%AIMS LTMP 2001: 55%AIMS LTMP 2001: 56%AIMS LTMP 2001: 63%AIMS LTMP 2002: 45%AIMS LTMP 2002: 51%AIMS LTMP 2002: 53%AIMS LTMP 2002: 58%AIMS LTMP 2003: 48%AIMS LTMP 2003: 51%AIMS LTMP 2003: 51%AIMS LTMP 2003: 54%AIMS LTMP 2004: 35%AIMS LTMP 2004: 38%AIMS LTMP 2004: 40%AIMS LTMP 2004: 44%AIMS LTMP 2006: 21%AIMS LTMP 2006: 27%AIMS LTMP 2006: 27%AIMS LTMP 2008: 29%AIMS LTMP 2008: 37%AIMS LTMP 2008: 38%AIMS LTMP 2008: 41%AIMS LTMP 2010: 37%AIMS LTMP 2010: 37%AIMS LTMP 2010: 41%AIMS LTMP 2010: 43%AIMS LTMP 2012: 24%AIMS LTMP 2012: 25%AIMS LTMP 2012: 29%AIMS LTMP 2012: 43%AIMS LTMP 2014: 12%AIMS LTMP 2014: 13%AIMS LTMP 2014: 24%AIMS LTMP 2014: 26%AIMS LTMP 2016: 3.9%AIMS LTMP 2016: 8.2%AIMS LTMP 2016: 9.2%AIMS LTMP 2016: 13%AIMS LTMP 2018: 7.2%AIMS LTMP 2018: 11%AIMS LTMP 2018: 14%AIMS LTMP 2018: 14%AIMS LTMP 2020: 17%AIMS LTMP 2020: 20%AIMS LTMP 2020: 25%AIMS LTMP 2020: 26%AIMS LTMP 2021: 29%AIMS LTMP 2021: 29%AIMS LTMP 2021: 31%AIMS LTMP 2021: 31%AIMS LTMP 2022: 29%AIMS LTMP 2022: 31%AIMS LTMP 2022: 32%AIMS LTMP 2022: 33%Reef Check 1998: 43%Reef Check 1999: 60%Reef Check 2002: 49%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2012: 24%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2014: 7.7%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2014: 8.7%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2014: 16%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2016: 5.1%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2016: 6.4%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2016: 11%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2017: 4.3%XL Catlin Seaview Survey 2017: 8.6%LOF Global Reef Expedition 2014: 24%Year-averaged across all programs: illustrative only; the programs differ in stations and method, so no trend is claimed (31 years)
AIMS manta tow AIMS LTMP Reef Check XL Catlin Seaview Survey LOF Global Reef ExpeditionYear-average (illustrative only, programs differ)

Within 5 km, 10 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 152 surveys between 1993 and 2023. Of the 10 stations surveyed in more than one year, 7 were scored by divers or by people annotating photographs: 1 declined (by 3.8 points) and 6 increased (by 4.9–21.2 points) between their first and latest surveys. The other 3 were scored by automated image analysis: 1 declined by more than 7 points; 2 changed by 7 points or less, inside the 7-point method-noise floor (inconclusive). The longest record, YONGE REEF (AIMS manta tow, 2.21 km away), went from 14% in 1993 to 35% in 2023. Since 2021, station-year means average 29% (range 19–35%; n = 14 station-years from 14 surveys). This site's own estimate (24%) sits 16.6 points above the range of these surveys up to 2 km away (4.3–7.7%); the methods differ, so the comparison is context, not a like-for-like test.

Collected by other programs using different methods (Reef Check uses point-intercept transects; AIMS manta tow is a towed visual estimate in categorical bins; AIMS LTMP uses fixed photo-transects; 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
AIMS manta towYONGE REEF1993–20235.5–35% (25 surveys)2.21 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09b0abf315a
AIMS LTMPNO NAME REEF site 11993–20228.2–66% (22 surveys)3.07 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09bc4ff315c
AIMS LTMPNO NAME REEF site 21993–202213–56% (21 surveys)3.55 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09bc4ff315c
AIMS LTMPNO NAME REEF site 31993–20229.2–57% (22 surveys)3.96 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09bc4ff315c
AIMS LTMPYONGE REEF site 31993–20223.9–55% (range of yearly means; 23 surveys)4.49 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09bc4ff315c
AIMS manta towNO NAME REEF1994–20234.3–40% (26 surveys)4.86 kmdoi:10.25845/5c09b0abf315a
Reef CheckRibbon Reef 10 - No Name Reef (Back reef slope) Site 11998–200243–60% (range of yearly means; 4 surveys)4.99 km—
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 120282012–20178.6–24% (4 surveys)3.54 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 120042014–20174.3–7.7% (3 surveys)0.65 kmdoi:10.14264/uql.2019.930
XL Catlin Seaview Surveytransect 120052014–20166.4–8.7% (2 surveys)4.14 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.