Coral Reef Diagnostics

Mauritius - Ti Korail

Reef Check Foundation
⬇ Download this page as a report card
05
Photo: Anderson Mayfield/Coral Reef Diagnostics
Country
Survey date(s)
2025-02-01
Coordinates
-19.9857, 57.5848
Coral cover
5.4%
Site cover estimate: manual point count and CoralNet, weighted equally (72 photos) · other methods below
Observations
not yet tagged for this site
Heat stress
Today’s heat load
16 Sep 2026 · No heat stress
5-year thermal stress load
5-year mean max. degree heating weeks (DHW)
2021–2025
NOAA Coral Reef Watch — Southern Mauritius 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 infoSouthern Mauritius (NOAA CRW virtual station)
Photographs
50
Site summary
Read this summary in:

A low-relief Mauritius patch reef and rubble-sand flat where isolated healthy coral heads sit among bare, sediment-covered ground, under dense schools of bluestripe snapper and fusiliers. Notable sightings included a large porcupinefish, a leaf scorpionfish, an octopus, a giant clam, and garden eels.

Max. depth dived
15.6 m
dive-log maximum
Water temp. during survey
28.0°C
+1.5°C vs the 2025 mean sea temperature (26.5°C)
Bottom time
51 min
in at 11:10

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

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

18 of these 50 photographs are shown beside the text that discusses them under "Site description" below.

14212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

Photo credit & attribution

Site description

Setting

Ti Korail is a low-relief patch reef and rubble/sand flat rather than a wall or slope, with scattered coral heads and small bommies rising from broad areas of open sand and coral rubble (e.g., Image 5, Image 10, Image 13).

General benthic features

The larger colonies were massive Porites and brain coral forms consistent with Dipsastraea/Favites, together with smaller branching and digitate growth compatible with Acropora or Pocillopora, occasional foliose plates, and fungiids scattered across the rubble (e.g., Image 2, Image 6, Image 7).

Live coral cover was highly patchy, with isolated healthy colonies set against an otherwise bare, sediment-covered substrate (e.g., Image 3, Image 11).

Coral cover

Coral cover: 5.4% — the site cover estimate from Anderson Mayfield's Mauritius manuscript (his manual point count and CoralNet, weighted equally); the manual point count alone is 7.0%. The earlier four-method average for this site was 15.0%; every method is compared in the table below. The figure pools a manual annotation, CoralNet point counts, an in-house DINOv3 point classifier, and a CoralSCOP computer vision over Anderson's own frames. The methods have different denominators and sampling footprints, so this is a provisional photo-derived index rather than a diver survey, and the agreement between the four is the real measure of confidence at this site. 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

No widespread bleaching was evident, though a few colonies showed pale or whitened polyps that image quality alone cannot reliably distinguish from natural coloration (e.g., Image 20).

No crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) or other corallivores evident.

Fish and other fauna

Dense schools of bluestripe snapper and silvery fusilier-type fish moved over the reef flat, accompanied by clouds of small blue damselfish (e.g., Image 1, Image 4, Image 16, Image 17, Image 19).

Individually notable sightings included a large spotted porcupinefish, a triggerfish, a lionfish, and a well-camouflaged leaf scorpionfish (e.g., Image 8, Image 9, Image 18).

Other fauna included an octopus, a giant clam, a long-spined black sea urchin, and garden eels over the sand (e.g., Image 12).

Comparisons with other data

A published figure above about 70% usually reflects the surveyors choosing the most coral-rich part of the reef, so read it as a best-patch number rather than a site mean.

CV model comparison

Computer vision on this site's own photographs gives In-house DINOv3 point classifier 22%; CoralSCOP 21% — reported alongside rather than merged, because as of September 2026 no computer-vision method estimates coral cover accurately on new images.
Headline is the reference value; every other row is listed beside it for comparison and none is averaged in. ⚠ This region's values are on the ALL-30 denominator (water and fish left in), not the settled Mayfield-2025 rule used at Oman, Kenya and the Red Sea.
More infoThe settled rule would raise every Mauritius site by 0–3.7 pp. Awaiting Anderson's ruling. The Claude row is the manuscript's Claude (with image context) value, scored on the same manual-reference frames as the manual count (v42 Table 3); the last of its five context batches had been seen before, so it is not fully blind. Anemone Garden is flagged non-reef in the source (anemone habitat); its manual value stands but carries no error term. CoralSCOP (SAM-based mask-sum), edited photos: n/a — no edited copies exist; EDITED_UNEDITED_RULES.md records Mauritius as verified 347/347 unedited
MethodHard-coral cover (%)
Site cover estimate5.4
Manual (draft manuscript)7.0
CoralNet10.6
In-house DINOv321.9
CoralSCOP unedited20.5
Claude7.4

Independent surveys nearby

Data availability near this site
Agency / programYear(s)Stations / distanceLink
Global bleaching + environmental database20161 station, 1.32 kmRecords ↓
Original collectors (compiled by McClanahan et al. 2016)20161 station, 4.90 kmRecords ↓
Reef Check1999–20002 stations, 0.33–3.70 kmRecords ↓
WCS via MERMAID20161 station, 1.32 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%22%44%66%88%199920122025Reef Check 1999: 46%Reef Check 1999: 61%Reef Check 2000: 30%WCS via MERMAID 2016: 71%Original collectors (compiled by McClanahan et al. 2016) 2016: 89%Dr. Coral (CRD) 2025: 5.4%Year-averaged across all programs: no detectable trend (-0.68 pp per year, not separable from zero; 4 years)
Reef Check WCS via MERMAID Original collectors (compiled by McClanahan et al. 2016) Dr. Coral (CRD)Year-average (no detectable trend)

Within 5 km, 5 independent survey stations recorded hard coral cover in 7 records between 1999 and 2016. Of the 1 station surveyed in more than one year, 1 declined between their first and latest surveys. The longest record, Island Reef (Reef Check, 0.33 km away), went from 61% in 1999 to 30% in 2000. The most recent nearby survey is from 2016, so these values predate recent heat stress. This site's own estimate (5.4%) sits 24.6 points below the range of these surveys (30–61%, excluding 3 best-patch values above 70% that are not a site mean); 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; 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), 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.

Independent survey data near this site
AgencySite / locationDateHard coral cover (%)DistanceLink
Reef CheckIsland Reef1999–200030–61% (2 surveys)0.33 km—
Reef CheckIsland Reef, Anse La Raie199946%3.70 km—
WCS via MERMAIDBain Boeuf201671% (2 images) best patch1.32 kmBriand J, Darling E. 2016. 2016 bleaching surveys. MERMAID
Original collectors (compiled by McClanahan et al. 2016)ALR/ALBC (Mauritius)201689% best patch4.90 km—
Global bleaching + environmental databaseBain Boeuf2016-03-1871% best patch1.32 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.