## 3 Results
### Effect of Different Additives on the Bacterial Communities of Whole-Plant Milelet Silage
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Additives** & **Shannon** & **Simpson** & **Chao1** & **Goods\_Coverage** \\ \hline Raw material & M & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 65.0 \(\pm\) 6.35 & 1.00 \\  & CK & 3.19 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 47.0 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 1.00 \\  & LP & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.02 d* & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 c* & 51.0 \(\pm\) 1.42 & 1.00 \\  & S & 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.24 c & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.07 b & 52.5 \(\pm\) 1.77 & 1.00 \\  & MIX & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.06 d & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 34.0 \(\pm\) 11.3 & 1.00 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{After 7 d aerobic stability test} & CK & 2.97 \(\pm\) 0.10 A & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.02 A & 46.0 \(\pm\) 10.6 & 1.00 \\  & LP & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.01 B & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.01 B & 48.0 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 1.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & S & 3.08 \(\pm\) 0.08 A & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.02 A & 57.0 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 1.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MIX & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.01 B & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.01 B & 43.0 \(\pm\) 5.65 & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: CK, LP, S, and MIX represent control, _Laciplantithacillus plantarum_, sucrose, combination of _Laciplantithacillus plantarum_ and sucrose addition treatments, respectively; M represents raw materials. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) between different treatments at silo opening; different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) between different treatments after aerobic stability test. An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) between at silo opening and post-aerobic conditions within the same treatment.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Effects of different additives on \(\alpha\) diversity before and after aerobic stability test of whole-plant millet silage. Figure 1: Principal component analysis (PCA) of bacterial communities in whole-plant millet raw material and silage. Note: M: raw material; CK, LP, S, and MIX represent control, _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_, sucrose, and a mixture of _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_ and sucrose treatments, respectively, at silo opening. Corresponding CKA, LPA, SA, and MIXA denote the groups after the aerobic stability test. Figure 2: Relative abundance of bacterial communities in whole-plant millet raw material and silage. Note: M: raw material; M2_C, M2_L, M2_S, and M2_M represent control, _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_, sucrose, and a mixture of _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_ and sucrose treatments, respectively, at silo opening. M2_CO, M2_LO, M2_SO, and M2_MO denote the groups post-aerobic stabilization. CK, LP, S, and MIX represent control, _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_, sucrose, and a mixture of _Lactiplantibacillus plantarum_ and sucrose treatments, respectively. The corresponding CKA, LPA, SA, and MIXA denote the groups after the aerobic stability test. At the genus level, the raw material was dominated by _Pseudomonas_, _Pantoea_, and _Sphingomonas_. However, post-ensiling, the CK group's microbial composition shifted to being dominated by _Klebsiella_, _Pantoea_, and _Enterobacter_. The additive treatments significantly altered these distributions, with _Lentilactobacillus_ becoming the dominant genus in the LP, S, and MIX groups, showing a marked ability to suppress undesirable genera such as the _Klebsiella_ and _Pantoea_ found in the CK group (Figures 2 and 3). Additionally, _Pantoea_ was detected in all treatment groups, with reduced relative abundances compared to the raw material (CK: 11.79%, LP: 0.84%, S: 3.40%, MIX: 0.86%). Notably, after the aerobic stability test, _Bacillus_ in the S group increased dramatically (from 0.04% at silo opening to 36.6%), dominating the microbial community (Figure 2).