Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025)

Assessing the utility of GreenSeeker® based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for weed variability differentiation in Bt Cotton

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7511
Submitted
30 January 2025
Published
18-05-2025 — Updated on 27-05-2025
Versions

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to assess the applicability of GreenSeeker® based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for weed variability identification in Bt cotton.  Various weed management practices consisting of combinations of hand weeding, inter-cultivation, pendimethalin, quizalofop-ethyl, pyrithiobac-Na including a weedy check and weed free check were used as treatments. Temporal and spatial variability of weed densities was noticed due to treatment effects in respective plots. NDVI value was calculated using a handheld GreenSeeker® for crop plants as well as weeds. All statistical comparisons were tested at the 0.05 level of significance (p < 0.05) using appropriate statistical methods. Results indicated that apart from weed free check the treatment with pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 678 g a.i. ha-1 + one hand weeding at 20 DAS and inter-cultivation two times at 45 and 60 DAS recorded significantly less weed population than other treatments at 20 (2.90 m-2), 40 (3.95 m-2), 60 DAS (2.49 m-2) and at harvest (4.02 m-2). It also recorded significantly higher NDVI for cotton at 60 (0.72) and 75 DAS (0.73).  The NDVI values calculated for Bt cotton could not differentiate the effect of weed management practices in early stage and showed significant difference only at 60 DAS. Whereas NDVI calculated over weed plants showed higher value with increase in density of weeds. The study identifies the limitations of solely relying on GreenSeeker® based NDVI for weed variability identification. The future research can investigate if other indices from multispectral or hyperspectral data improve weed differentiation.

References

  1. 1. Ibrahim IA, Yehia WM, Saleh FH, Lamlom SF, Ghareeb RY, et al. Impact of plant spacing and nitrogen rates on growth characteristics and yield attributes of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Front Plant Sci. 2022:13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.916734
  2. 2. Anonymous. Annual report. All India co-ordinated research project on cotton. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. 2022:543. http://www.aiccip.cicr.org.in/pdf/annual_report/AICRP_AR_2021_22.pdf
  3. 3. Kaur T, Walia US. Bioefficacy of potassium salt of glyphosate in Bt-cotton and its residual effect on succeeding crops. Indian J Weed Sci. 2014;46:358-60. https://isws.org.in/IJWSn/File/2014_46_Issue-4_358-360.pdf
  4. 4. Nalini K, Murhukrishnan P, Chinnusamy C, Vennila C. Weeds of cotton: A review. Agric Rev. 2015;36(2):140-46. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-0741.2015.00016.1
  5. 5. Sathishkumar A, Srinivasan G, Subramanian E, Rajesh P. Weed management in cotton: A review. Agric Rev. 2022;43(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-2080
  6. 6. Rouge A, Adeux G, Busset H, Hugard R, Martin J, Matejicek A, et al. Weed suppression in cover crop mixtures under contrasted levels of resource availability. Eur J Agron. 2022;136:126499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2022.126499
  7. 7. FAO, [FAOSTAT]. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 2025. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP
  8. 8. Lopez Granados F. Weed detection for site-specific weed management: Mapping and real-time approaches. Weed Res. 2011;51(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2010.00829.x
  9. 9. Gerhards R, Christensen S. Real-time weed detection, decision-making and patch spraying in maize, sugarbeet, winter wheat and winter barley. Weed Res. 2003;43:385-92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2003.00349.x
  10. 10. Lottes P, Behley J, Chebrolu N, Milioto A, Stachniss C. Joint stem detection and crop-weed classification for plant-specific treatment in precision farming. In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE; 2018;8233-38.
  11. 11. Huang S, Tang L, Hupy JP, Wang Y, Shao G. A commentary review on the use of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in the era of popular remote sensing. J For Res. 2021;32:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01155-1
  12. 12. Maestrini B, Basso B. Predicting spatial patterns of within-field crop yield variability. Field Crops Res. 2018;219:106-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.028
  13. 13. Wei Z, Fang W. UV-NDVI for real-time crop health monitoring in vertical farms. Smart Agric Technol. 2024;8:100462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100462
  14. 14. Ashwini TR, Potdar MP, Kumar BNA, Patil PL, Nirmalnath PJ. Optimization of response and sufficiency index in Bt cotton (Gossypium spp.) through optical sensor-based nitrogen management. Indian J Agric Sci. 2022;92(10):1190-95. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i10.118837
  15. 15. Edalat M, Naderi R, Egan T P. Corn nitrogen management using NDVI and SPAD sensor-based data under conventional vs. reduced tillage systems. J Plant Nutr. 2019;42(18):2310–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2019.1648686
  16. 16. Dong X, Peng B, Sieckenius S, Raman R, Conley MM, Leskovar DI. Leaf water potential of field crops estimated using NDVI in ground-based remote sensing-Opportunities to increase prediction precision. PeerJ. 2021;18(9):e12005. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12005
  17. 17. Rouse JW Jr, Haas RH, Deering DW, Schell JA, Harlan JC. Monitoring the vernal advancement and retrogradation (green wave effect) of natural vegetation. NASA Tech Rep. 1974;5:127. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750020419/downloads/19750020419.pdf
  18. 18. Ghaffar A, Habib ur Rahman M, Ali HR, Haider G, Ahmad S, Fahad S, et al. Modern concepts and techniques for better cotton production. In: Cotton production and uses Agronomy Crop Protection and Postharvest Technologies. 2020:589-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_29
  19. 19. Jones JR, Fleming CS, Pavuluri K. Influence of soil, crop residue and sensor orientations on NDVI readings. Precis Agric. 2015;16:690-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-015-9402-0
  20. 20. Solano Alvarez N, Valencia-Hernández JA, Vergara-Pineda S, Millan-Almaraz JR, Torres-Pacheco I, Guevara-Gonzalez RG. Comparative analysis of the NDVI and NGBVI as indicators of the protective effect of beneficial bacteria in conditions of biotic stress. Plants. 2022;11(7):932. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070932

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.