Coral Reef Diagnostics

Kenya - Ocean Trust Nursery (Pate [Lamu]) snorkel

⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Coral Reef Diagnostics
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Country
Survey date(s)
2024-04-03
Coordinates
-2.2140, 41.0177
Coral cover
29%
Manual point count (62 photos) · other methods below
Coral bleached
95%
of hard coral tissue · Mayfield (2025), Environments 12:276
Observations
bleachingalgal overgrowth
Heat stress
Most recent heat load record
26 Oct 2026 · No heat stress
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
NOAA Coral Reef Watch — Kenya 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 infoKenya (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
63
20 shown on this page
Site summary
Read this summary in:

Ocean Trust Nursery, the final site of the 2024 Kenya survey, combines MARS-style restoration hardware (hexagonal reef stars, rope lines, a rebar frame) with an older, more complex natural reef built on large stacked plate-coral stands. Nearly everything here was bleached (95% of tissue), though one striking frame captured a natural branching thicket showing the full gradient at once — bone-white, cream, tan, and deep wine-red pigmented branches touching each other — the clearest evidence that the response was colony-specific rather than uniform. Published cover was 29%, though as a stocked restoration plot this figure shouldn't be compared directly with natural-reef sites.

Water temp. during survey
32.0°C
(estimated from the TG7 underwater camera, not validated (Mayfield 2025, Environments 12:276, Table 1))

One other CRD dive site with its own page within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.

4 of the 20 photographs on this page are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

567891011121314151617181920

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

The site is a restoration installation set on and beside natural reef, and the two have to be read separately.

General benthic features

The full set shows three distinct structure types, not one. Coated-steel hexagonal MARS-style reef stars are pegged flat to the hardground and photographed from directly above, their six-sided webbing plainly visible with a coral fragment lashed to each junction (e.g., Image 1).

Separate from those, long horizontal rope lines run in parallel ranks across the bottom with staghorn and corymbose Acropora fragments tied out at wide intervals — sparse stocking, the fragments standing as isolated points on dark turf-covered rock rather than forming any canopy. Third, a vertical rebar frame with ladder-like horizontal rungs is guyed to a round surface float, fragments hung along the rungs; it is the only structure in the set standing up into the water column, and it is the one place where pigmented fragments are conspicuous. One rope also runs directly across the crown of a large massive Porites-type dome, so the hardware is anchored on living reef in at least one spot. The natural reef is older, structurally far more complex than the nursery, and the frames at 12:23-12:27 are dominated by very large monospecific stands of laminar coral — tightly stacked, concentrically whorled plates with fine parallel ridges, running meters across and standing up in tiers. These are the reef's defining feature (e.g., Image 4).

Coral cover

Stressors

Across every structure type the fragments are overwhelmingly bone- to porcelain-white: whole frames of them at 12:18-12:20 and again at 12:28-12:29 on the reef stars (e.g., Image 3).

A real but small minority holds pigment. One frame is the single most informative for that — an overhead of one grid where roughly fifteen fragments include three or four in solid olive-tan and two with a lilac-pink cast, the rest stark white. The rebar frame carries several tan-olive fragments among the white ones. Anderson's own frames warn against reading that tan too generously: one frame is a hand indicating a tan-brown corymbose colony recorded as dead skeleton taken over by turf, not surviving tissue, and the same demonstration is repeated at 12:18 in two more frames with a tan colony held against a white neighbor. Some proportion of the apparently pigmented fragments in this set are therefore dead, algal-covered skeleton rather than survivors. The natural plate stands' condition is partial rather than total: one frame is a single colony split across the image, salmon-pink on one side and chalk-white on the other; two are pale pink-cream throughout; three are cream-olive with green algal fuzz creeping over the upper plates; and one is a close-up of white plate skeleton with dark brown-green algal bands settled into every valley — tissue already gone, not merely paled. On several of those plate stands, filamentous algae are overgrowing the colonies' upper tiers. Alongside the plates: a large dome of dense knobby corallites gone uniformly pale; two big white massive colonies in teal water; a white massive Porites-type dome with a dead brown patch on its shoulder; white meandroid and fleshy massive heads with algal invasion along their margins; and pale lavender knobby colonies. One frame is the summary image — an entire branching stand, meters across, uniformly bleached bluish-white with not one pigmented branch in it (e.g., Image 2).

Another frame is a large columnar colony with cream-white column tops over dark maroon-brown lower tissue, recorded by Anderson as dying rather than intact. Two frames at 12:30, at the very end of the swim, are the exception in the set and worth naming. One frame is a broad mound of dense branching coral in pale pink-cream, and another — the single best frame here — is a mixed natural thicket showing the whole gradient at once on touching branches: bone white, cream, tan, deep chocolate, and saturated wine-red fully pigmented colonies side by side. That within-thicket gradient, on colonies of the same growth form growing into one another, is the clearest evidence at this site that the response was strongly colony-specific rather than uniform, and it is not something color adjustment can manufacture. No crown-of-thorns anywhere in the set. No lesion pattern separable from bleaching, algal overgrowth, and post-mortality turf. The stress signal here is thermal, compounded by turbidity and by the heavy algal turf already holding the hardground between colonies. Seawater here was an estimated 32.0°C during the survey (read from the TG7 underwater camera and not validated, per Mayfield 2025, Environments 12:276, Table 1; the Kenya survey-wide mean of 32.0°C matched the 1998 event), and NOAA recorded a peak of 13.5 degree-heating weeks on 18 April 2024, the highest for Kenya since records began in 1985. For the 2024 Kenya survey as a whole, Mayfield (2025, Environments 12:276) estimated that in situ temperatures ran about 1.3°C above NOAA's, so that "nearly 22 DHWs may actually have transpired"; those in situ readings came from the TG7 underwater camera and have not been validated.

Fish and other fauna

Fauna is thin. A few small planktivores hang over the rope lines and reef stars and small damselfish sit in the plate stacks; there is no schooling fish life and no large mobile fauna in any of the 55 frames reviewed.

Comparisons with other data

Apart from our own published survey shown here, we found no other surveys at this site as of 2026. If you would like to share yours, please email us.

Dive record

Snorkeled 3 Apr 2024, 12:17-12:30, in green, particle-laden water off Pate Island in the Lamu archipelago — the final site of the 2024 Kenya survey. Surveys were run with PMCC / Northern Rangelands Trust.

Other notes

The nursery is run by the Ocean Trust (MARS) program — https://www.buildingcoral.com/.

CV model comparison

Computer-vision estimates from this site's own photographs are listed in the comparison table below, alongside the headline rather than merged into it.
Headline is the reference value; every other row is listed beside it for comparison and none is averaged in. ⚠ The methods did not all read the same photographs: the published manual value covers the site's 62 photographs; CoralNet ran on 62 and the in-house DINOv3 classifier on 63 unedited photographs, Claude (blind) on 57 of them, and CoralSCOP on 41.
More infoRecomputed on only the 57 frames Claude scored, the manual count is 23%; that like-for-like figure, not the published value, is the fair comparison for Claude. ⚠ Claude's value counts all 30 points in the denominator, while the published manual value, CoralNet, and DINOv3 exclude water and fish points (the Mayfield 2025 convention), so Claude reads somewhat low on that basis alone. CoralSCOP (SAM-based mask-sum), edited photos: n/a — CoralSCOP was run only on the unedited Kenya photographs.
MethodHard coral cover (%)Photos (n) ± SE
Manual (published)28.9
CoralNet28.1n = 62
In-house DINOv340.3n = 63
CoralSCOP unedited10.9n = 41
Claude23.3n = 57 · SE 2.6

The four computer-vision methods disagree by 29.4 pp (10.9–40.3%) and read on both sides of the manual point count (28.9%); the headline is the manual point count because a person's point count of the site's photographs is the reference the models are measured against.

Data & links

All images from Coral Reef Diagnostics. Data are from Coral Reef Diagnostics.

© Coral Reef Diagnostics.