TABLE 3.
Comparison of diversity and richness indices among the solid, liquid, and epithelial fractions under the tree treatments.
| Item | OTU numbers | Shannon | Chao 1 | ||||||
| Solid | Liquid | Epithelium | Solid | Liquid | Epithelium | Solid | Liquid | Epithelium | |
| UC | 2084c | 2015c | 1609b | 5.80 | 5.60 | 5.52 | 3015c | 2897c | 2241b |
| LU | 1991c | 1936c | 1621b | 5.59 | 5.54 | 5.55 | 2987c | 2882c | 2281b |
| HU | 2211c | 2243c | 1971a | 6.31 | 6.24 | 6.10 | 3101c | 3159c | 2655a |
| SEM1 | 316 | 0.08 | 441 | ||||||
| F | <0.001 | 0.406 | <0.001 | ||||||
| T | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.024 | ||||||
| F × T2 | 0.877 | 0.986 | 0.837 | ||||||
1Standard error of means. 2Probability of a significant effect due to rumen fractions (F), treatment (T), and their interaction (F × T). a,b,cValues within the same row or column with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). UC, basal diet with no urea; LU, basal diet supplemented with a low concentration of urea (10 g/kg DM); HU, basal diet supplemented with a high concentration of urea (30 g/kg DM).