. 2018 Nov 12;8:16712. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35081-4

Table 5.

Comparison of the dominant genus (average relative abundance ≥1% for at least one treatment) within the rumen. ^a,bValues in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).

Phylum	Genus	Treatments					SEM	P-value
Phylum	Genus	NC	PC	BL	SC	BS	SEM	P-value
Bacteroidetes	Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group	13.01	13.68	11.40	14.29	15.10	0.53	0.227
	Prevotella_1	14.61	9.87	14.31	11.09	13.32	0.86	0.337
	Prevotellaceae_UCG-003	4.10	3.57	4.24	3.76	4.79	0.29	0.740
	Prevotellaceae_UCG-001	2.30	2.27	2.08	2.24	2.43	0.14	0.967
Firmicutes	Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG-004	2.75	1.805	2.72	2.02	1.61	0.29	0.626
	Ruminococcaceae_UCG-010	1.69	1.95	2.19	1.62	1.37	0.14	0.433
	Ruminococcaceae_UCG-002	1.37	1.49	1.63	1.79	2.23	0.16	0.467
	Eubacterium_coprostanoligenes _group	1.25	1.04	1.03	1.48	1.06	0.10	0.537
	Lachnospiraceae_ND3007_group	0.82	0.98	0.83	1.46	0.76	0.12	0.341
	Christensenellaceae_R-7_group	0.81	0.86	1.01	1.12	1.03	0.06	0.408
	Succiniclasticum	1.03	0.61	0.55	0.70	0.76	0.07	0.190
proteobacteria	Thalassospira	1.46	1.46	0.70	0.84	0.78	0.25	0.784
Firbrobacteres	Fibrobacter	1.57^b	1.44^b	1.16^b	2.84^a	1.63^b	0.19	0.042
Spirochaetes	Treponema_2	1.71	1.49	1.30	1.32	1.32	0.08	0.493