The Limits of RGB-Based Vegetation Indexes under Canopy Degradation: Insights from UAV Monitoring of Harvested Cereal Fields

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) equipped with RGB cameras are increasingly used as low-cost tools for crop monitoring, offering a range of vegetation indexes in the visible spectral range. These indexes have often been reported to correlate with other multispectral indexes such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) during active growth stages. However, still efforts should be done about their performance under conditions of canopy degradation. In this study, UAV flights were conducted over a cereal field immediately after harvest, when the canopy consisted mostly of bare soil and dry residues. RGB-based indexes were calculated from the orthomosaic, normalized to a [0-1] scale, and compared to NDVI derived from a multispectral sensor. Data preprocessing included ground control point (GCP) georeferencing, removal of NoData pixels, and raster alignment. Results revealed very weak correlations between RGB indexes and NDVI (Pearson r < 0.15), with Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index (VARI) showing almost no variability across the field. Although the Leaf Index (GLI), yielded the lowest error values, all RGB indexes failed to reproduce the variability of NDVI under post-harvest conditions. These findings highlight a critical methodological limitation: RGB indexes are unsuitable for vegetation monitoring when canopy cover is severely reduced. While they remain useful during active growth, their reliability diminishes in degraded or post-harvest scenarios, thereby limiting their application in assessing abiotic stress in cereals.

Keywords

UAV remote sensing / RGB vegetation indexes / NDVI comparison / Post-harvest cereals / Abiotic stress monitoring

Statement of the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Chat GPT to review grammar and typos. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.-C., V.H.D.-Z., F.S.-B., A.C.-C. and V.R.-G.; Methodology, J.R.-C. and V.R.-G.; Validation, J.R.-C., V.H.D.-Z., F.S.-B., A.C.-C. and V.R.-G.; Formal Analysis, J.R.-C., A.A.G.A.-S. and V.R.-G.; Investigation, J.R.-C., A.A.G.A.-S., V.H.D.-Z., F.S.-B., A.C.-C. and V.R.-G.; Data Curation, J.R.-C., Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.R.-C., V.H.D.-Z., F.S.-B., A.C.-C. and V.R.-G.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.R.-C., V.H.D.-Z., F.S.-B., A.C.-C. and V.R.-G.; Project Administration, J.R.-C., and V.R.-G.; Funding Acquisition, J.R.-C. and V.R.-G.

Ethics Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be shared upon due request.

Funding

This research was funded by the project “Desarrollo de productos basados en los nuevos sensores satelitales hiperespectrales europeos e IA para la caracterización de estresores en tierras de cultivo (HIPROESTRES)” (grant number PID2023-152656OB-I00), within the Programa Estatal de Investigación Científica, Técnica y de Innovación (2021-2023) by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Weiss M, Jacob F, Duveiller G. Remote Sensing for Agricultural Applications: A Meta-Review. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 236, 111402. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111402.

[2] Sishodia RP, Ray RL, Singh SK. Applications of Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture: A Review. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3136. doi:10.3390/rs12193136.

[3] Umirzakova S, Muksimova S, Shavkatovich Buriboev A, Primova H, Choi AJ. A Unified Transformer Model for Simultaneous Cotton Boll Detection, Pest Damage Segmentation, and Phenological Stage Classification from UAV Imagery. Drones 2025, 9, 555. doi:10.3390/drones9080555.

[4] 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. doi:10.1007/s11676-020-01155-1.

[5] Cao X, Liu Y, Yu R, Han D, Su B. A Comparison of UAV RGB and Multispectral Imaging in Phenotyping for Stay Green of Wheat Population. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 5173. doi:10.3390/rs13245173.

[6] García-Fernández M, Sanz-Ablanedo E, Rodríguez-Pérez JR. High-Resolution Drone-Acquired RGB Imagery to Estimate Spatial Grape Quality Variability. Agronomy 2021, 11, 655. doi:10.3390/agronomy11040655.

[7] Doornbos J, Babur Ö, Valente J. Evaluating Generalization of Methods for Artificially Generating NDVI from UAV RGB Imagery in Vineyards. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 512. doi:10.3390/rs17030512.

[8] Colovic M, Stellacci AM, Mzid N, Di Venosa M, Todorovic M, Cantore V, et al. Comparative Performance of Aerial RGB vs. Ground Hyperspectral Indices for Evaluating Water and Nitrogen Status in Sweet Maize. Agronomy 2024, 14, 562. doi:10.3390/agronomy14030562.

[9] Feng H, Tao H, Li Z, Yang G, Zhao C. Comparison of UAV RGB Imagery and Hyperspectral Remote-Sensing Data for Monitoring Winter Wheat Growth. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3811. doi:10.3390/rs14153811.

[10] Tulu BB, Teshome F, Ampatzidis Y, Hailegnaw NS, Bayabil HK. AgriSenAI: Automating UAV Thermal and Multispectral Image Processing for Precision Agriculture. SoftwareX 2025, 30, 102083. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2025.102083.

[11] Ullah S, Ilniyaz O, Eziz A, Ullah S, Fidelis GD, Kiran M, et al. Multi-Temporal and Multi-Resolution RGB UAV Surveys for Cost-Efficient Tree Species Mapping in an Afforestation Project. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 949. doi:10.3390/rs17060949.

[12] Duan B, Fang S, Zhu R, Wu X, Wang S, Gong Y, et al. Remote Estimation of Rice Yield With Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Data and Spectral Mixture Analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 204. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00204.

[13] Hodson TO. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) or Mean Absolute Error (MAE): When to Use Them or Not. Geosci. Model Dev. 2022, 15, 5481-5487. doi:10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022.

[14] Wang L, Duan Y, Zhang L, Rehman TU, Ma D, Jin J. Precise Estimation of NDVI with a Simple NIR Sensitive RGB Camera and Machine Learning Methods for Corn Plants. Sensors 2020, 20, 3208. doi:10.3390/s20113208.

[15] Davidson C, Jaganathan V, Sivakumar AN, Czarnecki JMP, Chowdhary G. NDVI/NDRE Prediction from Standard RGB Aerial Imagery Using Deep Learning. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 203, 107396. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107396.

[16] Gerardo R, de Lima IP. Applying RGB-Based Vegetation Indices Obtained from UAS Imagery for Monitoring the Rice Crop at the Field Scale: A Case Study in Portugal. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1916. doi:10.3390/agriculture13101916.

[17] Hasan U, Sawut M, Chen S. Estimating the Leaf Area Index of Winter Wheat Based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle RGB-Image Parameters. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6829. doi:10.3390/su11236829.

[18] González-Moreno MT, Rodrigo-Comino J. Geostatistical Vegetation Filtering for Rapid UAV-RGB Mapping of Sudden Geomorphological Events in the Mediterranean Areas. Drones 2025, 9, 441. doi:10.3390/drones9060441.

[19] Aldakheel YY. Assessing NDVI Spatial Pattern as Related to Irrigation and Soil Salinity Management in Al-Hassa Oasis, Saudi Arabia. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2011, 39, 171-180.

[20] Ding Y, Zhao K, Zheng X, Jiang T. Temporal Dynamics of Spatial Heterogeneity over Cropland Quantified by Time-Series NDVI, near Infrared and Red Reflectance of Landsat 8 OLI Imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2014, 30, 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2014.01.009.

[21] Baret F, Guyot G. Potentials and Limits of Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 35, 161-173. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(91)90009-U.

[22] Huete AR, Jackson RD, Post DF. Spectral Response of a Plant Canopy with Different Soil Backgrounds. Remote Sens. Environ. 1985, 17, 37-53. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(85)90111-7.