Maldives - Veligandu
Part of the regional summaries: Maldives - Central (Male Atolls / Ari / Vaavu) and Maldives
More info
Maldives (NOAA CRW virtual station) · Maldives ecoregion mean=2.9°C-heating weeksVeligandu's staghorn and table corals are under active attack from crown-of-thorns starfish, with feeding scars spreading across a brain coral and staghorn stripped to skeleton in places, even as dense branching stands and a big Diploastrea hold on elsewhere. Computer vision cover estimate is 13-22%, averaging 17.7%.
Four independent survey stations shown with the program’s logo — click one to see how far it is from this site.
Eleven other CRD dive sites within 5 km shown in orange — click a marker to open its page.
5 of these 17 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.
Site description
Setting
Veligandu is beautiful — sandy channels, staghorn thickets, big table corals — but this dive turned into a crime-scene walkthrough (e.g., Image 3).
General benthic features
Between the carnage, the reef flexes what it still has: dense branching-coral stands, a grand dome of Diploastrea, and the dive's giddiest moment — a mob of big yellow-finned trevally engulfing the photographer until they were the only thing in frame (e.g., Image 5).
Coral cover
Coral cover: 18% — photo-derived, and the two methods differ by 9.4 pp (13% vs 22%). This site's figure is the mean of two independent computer vision passes over Anderson's own frames: a DINOv3 calibrated point classifier reads 13% and a CoralSCOP computer vision reads 22.4%, a spread of 9.4 percentage points. The map publishes the mean so sites can be sorted against one another, but the honest statement of what is known here is the 13–22% range: the two products have different denominators and should not be treated as one measurement. Anderson keeps an eye out for newer CV models and will refresh this CoralSCOP and DINOv3 figure once a more trustworthy option is available.
Stressors
Crown-of-thorns seastars were everywhere: a huge one splayed on the sand with electric violet-striped spines and a retinue of tiny fish sheltering beneath it, another hugging a coral head so tightly the camera roll calls it "facehugger COTS." (e.g., Image 2) Their calling cards surround them — chalk-white feeding scars spreading across a honeycomb brain coral, staghorn branches stripped to skeleton from the base up, a mound coral eaten down one flank (e.g., Image 1, Image 4).
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
More info
As of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images, so treat this as indicative rather than a measurement; it is revised as the methods improve.More info
The published figure is the mean of the two methods.| Method | Hard-coral cover (%) |
|---|---|
| In-house DINOv3 | 13.0 |
| CoralSCOP | 22.4 |
| Mean (± SD) | 17.7 ± 6.6 |
| Range | 13.0–22.4 |
Mean ± SD and range are across the computer-vision methods shown.
Independent surveys nearby
| Agency / program | Year(s) | Stations / distance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montefalcone et al. (2020) | 2015 | 1 station, 1.50 km | Records ↓ |
| Reef Check | 2022 | 1 station, 3.12 km | Records ↓ |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | 2015–2017 | 2 stations, 2.39–3.15 km | Records ↓ |
Dr. Coral (CRD)Year-average (no detectable trend)Within 5 km, 4 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 5 records between 2015 and 2022. Of the 1 station surveyed in more than one year, 1 changed by less than 5 percentage points between their first and latest surveys. The longest record, transect 37035 (XL Catlin Seaview Survey, 2.39 km away), went from 7.1% in 2015 to 5.5% in 2017. One survey since 2021 recorded 19%. This site's own estimate (18%) is indistinguishable from the recent value (19%): the 1.7-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 (Reef Check uses point-intercept 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 range is shown. Station names are not dive-site names. Values marked best patch exceed 70%: surveyors usually chose the richest area, so they are not site means.
| Agency | Site / location | Date | Hard coral cover (%) | Distance | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montefalcone et al. (2020) | Cocoa Corner | 2015 | 76% best patch | 1.50 km | HeatCRD database |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 37035 | 2015–2017 | 5.5–7.1% (2 images) | 2.39 km | — |
| XL Catlin Seaview Survey | transect 37036 | 2015 | 38% | 3.15 km | — |
| Reef Check | Gulhi Island Backreef | 2022 | 19% | 3.12 km | — |
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.