Productivity of Calliandra calothyrsus , Indigofera zollingeriana and Gliricidia sepium on Acid Soil in the Greenhouse

Herdiawan I, Sutedi E. 2015. Productivity of Calliandra calothyrsus, Indigofera zollingeriana and Gliricidia sepium on acid soil in the greenhouse. JITV 20(2): 105-114. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14334/jitv.v20i2.1165 Acid soil which contains Al and Mn is generally unfavorable for crop including the tree legumes. The minerals are toxic to the plants resulted minimalization of growth and crop production. Caliandra calothyrsus, Indigofera zollingeriana, and Gliricidia sepium were tree legumes those are generally used for forage. The aim of this study was to compare their tolerancy to Al and growth production on acid soil. The plants were grown in ultisol soil with 4.57 of pH collected from Palm Oil plantation, Sei-Putih, Medan. The experiment was carried out using completely randomized design (CRD) with kind of plants as the treatment and 12 times replication. The data were analyzed by ANOVA using the SPSS and excel program, followed by LSD test when the data was significantly difference. Variables measured were plant morphology, concentration of Al 3+ in the plant tissues, plant height, stem diameter, number of stem branches, root length, plant production, nutrient content, energy and in vitro digestibility. The highest Al 3+ contents in leaves, stem and root were significantly observed in those G. sepium, while the lowest contents was observed from those of I. zollingeriana. G. sepium was the most dwarf plant and its stem diameter was comparable with the one of C. calothyrsus, but was lower than that of I. zollingeriana. The highest number of branches was significantly observed in I. zollingeriana, while the lowest one was at G. sepium. The root length of C. calothyrsus was comparable with that of I. zollingeriana, while G. sepium root was the shorthest one. Root nodulation was only formed at I. zollingeriana. The highest biomass production was observed at I. zollingeriana which also had highest protein content and the best digestibility. Data from Al + concentration in tissues of leaves, stems and roots showed that I. zollingeriana was the most tolerant plant to acid soils. This tolerancy also affected higher plant growth, biomass production, nutrient concentration, and digestibility.


INTRODUCTION
Large acid dry soil potential in Indonesia is a chance to produce various crop commodities (food crops, estates, or livestock's feed crops).Several soils that generally had acid pH in the dry area were Entisols, Inceptisols, Ultisols, Oxisols, and Spodosols, especially for area, which has wet climate with high rainfall.The largest ordos were Ultisol and Inceptisols, with its dominan spreading was in the Sumatera, Kalimantan, and Papua (Mulyani et al. 2004).Utisol was one of soil types which widely spreaded reaching 45794000 ha or about 25% of total of Indonesian land, which was widely used as estate area, among other oil palm, rubber, and industry plantation (Subagyo et al. 2004).
Concentration of high alumunium in the form of Al 3+ was one of limiting factors of crops cultivation on the acid (pH ≤5.5) land which inhibited crop's growth and production (Gergichevich et al. 2010).In line with it, Sopandie (2006) said that reactive alumunium (Al 3+ ) was released from soil in the form of AI(OH) 2+ and AI(OH) 3+ which often become toxic to all agricultural crops, because of the AI ion inhibited root growth quickly in concentration of micromolar.Kinraide & Hagerman (2010) also said that alumunum was very strong toxic to the crop and would inhibit their growth, decrease biomass production and overall crop yield.Ryan & Delhaize (2010) said that Al 3+ toxicity in acid land (pH ≤5.5) was main factor of stress to the crop, especially to the root tissue of crop that directly contacted with the environtment (Rizonsphere).According to Rengel & Zhang (2003), decreasing of root growth was one of early and very clear simpthom of AI toxication in micromolar (µM) concentration limit which boosted the decreasing of water and nutrient absorption capacity.The alumunium able to inhibit essential nutrient absorption to the crops such as Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Mo, and P (Poschenrieder et al. 2008).Mora et al. (2006) said that AI toxicity changed physiology and biochemistry process of the crop, and its consequence affected its productivity.In despite of Al inhibited process of metabolism and crops growth, but until a certain threshold, tolerant crops (Utama et al. 2005) could tolerate AI effect.According to Wang et al. (2006), several crops were tolerant to aluminum stress because they eliminated AI, so that was not toxic and affected growth and productivity of the crops.Based on Polania et al. (2010), in the genotype of the tolerant crops showed better rooting performance and expected would produce higher biomass.In the context of the sustainable forage on the acid dry land, it needed acid-tolerant foragrs.Several forages included in Fabaceae family had good enough tolerance to the dry acid land (Tjelele 2006).C. calothyrsus, I. zollingeriana, and G. sepium were tree leguminous which could be used as forage in the acid soil of estate area, so that needed to be observed extent to which its tolerance and productivity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research was carried out at greenhouse of Agrostology, Ciawi Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production (AIAT) using 3 tree leguminous (C.calothyrsus, G. sepium, dan I. zollingeriana).Growing media used in this research was Ultiosl acid soil from oil palm plantation, Medan with chemical composition of the soil was presented in the Table 1.
Each of the three crops was planted in plastic pot (40 and 50 cm of diameter, which its base was coated by plastic with 40 cm of diameter to hold water spilled when watering.Planting process was started by seeding of the three crops on the seeding tray for 4 weeks old.After 4 weeks, the seeds were moved into small polybags until 8 weeks old and further, those seedling were moved into plastic pots which were fulfilled by 40 kg of planting media.Watering was done once of 2 days.Volume of watering was adapted with determination result of field capacity (FC).Morphology of crops and root were observed visually at the end of this study.Dry weight production of the crops was done for 44 weeks in every 90 days of harvest day using digital scale.Crops growth was measured in every 2 weeks using meter with 1 cm of scale and digital Vernier calipers.Al 3+ concentration and nutrient composition was determined from proximate analysis in the nutrition laboratory of IRIAP.
The experiment was carried out using completely randomized design (CRD) with kind of plants as the treatment and 12 times replication.The data were analyzed by ANOVA using the SPSS and excel program, followed by LSD test when the data was significantly difference.Variables measured were plant morphology, concentration of Al 3+ in the plant tissues, plant height (height, stem diameter, number of branches, root length), plant production (dry weight of leaves, branches and stems, biomass, and ratio of stem/leave) nutrient content (crude protein, crude fiber, fat, dust, Ca, and P), energy and in vitro digestibility of dry and organic materials.

Morphology of the crops in the acid soil
Based on observation result, morphologically, I. zollingeriana was better than C. callothyrsus and G. sepium, such as shave and color of leaves, stems, and the number of brunches.Stem of the C. callothyrsus seemed thicker than I. zollingeriana and G. sepium, likewise the leaves color of the I. zollingeriana seemed greener than C. callothyrsus and G. sepium which were yellowish and dry out at the tip of the leaves.G. sepium was stunted growth with thin stem, and in almost the leaves had tallow spot, whereas C. callothyrsus tree grown spindly and almost all leaves had yellow spot (Figure 1.).Suntoro et al. (2014) said that the condition of the soil pH is low (acidic), the solubility of some minerals not available to needed for the chlorofil formation.Consequently decreased leaf chlorophyll, leaf color yellow spots which in turn is inhibited the process of photosynthesis rate.Thus the amount of photosynthate produced is very low, this determines the lower plant growth.This showed that both of the I. zollingeriana and C. callothyrsus were poisoned by micro content.Sumarno (2005) said that clear symptoms of crops that sensitive to the acid soil were very stunted growth, brownish yellow leaves, very limited root growth, minimal flower-shaped, and minimal seed number, very low productivity or failed to produce seeds (Figure 2).
According to Wang et al. (2006) poisoned plant by AI would has nutrient deficiency, such as P, Ca, Mg, Mn, and Fe, so that morphologically was more stunted and its productivity was low.Schaberg et al. (2006) found the same thing in the sugar maple plant that showed high AI content affected low Ca and restricted plant growth.Sumarno (2005) said that the growth of soybean plant on acid soil was suffer due to abiotic and biotic stresses, such as (a) vegetative growth was hampered because of macro and micro deficiency; (b) AI or Mn poisoning; (c) nodule formation was inhibited; (d) the plant was easier to get drought stress; and (e) root growth was inhibited.Furthermore, it was said that very clear symptoms were very stunted growth, brownish yellow leaves, very limited root growth, minimal flower-shaped, and minimal seed number, very low productivity or failed to produce seeds.Although Al concentrations in the nutrient solutions are within the micromolar range (25-1,600 μM), they are sufficient to induce morphological and physiological damage in some crops, and even more significant changes in seedlings (Rengel 1996).Altoxicity is an important stress factor for plants, limiting plant growth, development and the subsequent performance of commercial crops (Poschenrieder et al. 2008); Rout et al. 2001).

Root morphology on the acid soil
Morphology chance of C. callotyrsus root was not clearly seen, the roots grown lengthwise, feathers grown normally, but nodule was not found in the main root or the branches.Root morphology of I. zollingeriana showed normal growth, the most root hair in every main root or branches and nodule was formed.Root morphology chance was occurred in the G. sepium, that was abnormally growth, shorter with slightly root feather and only grown at the root tip (Figure 3).
No formation of nodule on the root of C. calothyrsus and G. sepium was one indicator of the AL 3+ poisoning consisted of root cells damage, so that root did not grow well aside from poisoning the environment (rhizosfer) that affected root microbe (rhizobium) growth.
As noted by Taiz & Zeiger (2006) that growth of crops rooting was highly depended on growth environment of the crops and its growth was controlled by crop's activity.Factors affected the soil environment among other factor of physic, biology, and chemistry of soil.The first symptom came up from AI poisoning was short rooting system as a result of cell extension inhibition (Chairani et al. 2007).So that according to Wang et al. (2006) who said that the first response of crop to Al 3+ poisoning was root tissue damage, so that contributed to nutrient absorption decrease.Besides, AL 3+ also gave bad effect to structure and function of leaves as photosynthesis machine and showed leaf necrosis, so that assimilation process not running optimally (Zhang et al. 2007).
The highly growth and extension of root under acid soil stress showed higher tolerance than its adaptation to acid soil (nutrient deficiency) with high aluminum content (Polania et al. 2010).Based on Atman (2006), general characteristics of acid soil were pH value of the soil less that 4; low nutrient content of soil organic matter (SOM); low of P availability and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of soil; high content of Mn 2+ and reactive aluminum (Al 3+ ) that may poison the root and inhibit nodule forming of the legumes.Sudaryono (2009) said that former coal mine land showed pH around 4.4-5.3 was indicated as acid soil, whereas 4.2-4.3 of pH was indicated as very acid soil.The decrease in root growth is one of the initial and most evident symptoms of Altoxicity at micromolar (μM) concentrations in plants (Rengel & Zhang 2003).

AL 3+ concentration of crops tissue in the acid soil
Average Al 3+ concentration in tissue of leaves, stems, and roots of I. zollingeriana was significantly lowest (P<0.05)than C. callothyrsus and G. sepium (Table 2).The highest Al 3+ concentration was in the part of root tissue.This was because of the root was a part of crop tissue which directly contacted with rizosphere (acid soil), so that Al 3+ concentration was accumulated more in the part of that tissue, whereas it was relatively low in the tissue.Poisoning symptom was seen from Al 3+ accumulation in the G. sepium tissue, or this crop was not tolerance and disable to eliminate the Al 3+ accumulation.I. zollingeriana and C. callothyrsus was able to eliminate the Al 3+ accumulation on all tissue, so both of the crops still show good morphology character.Delhaize & Ryan (1995) said that crop which tolerance to the Al stress, was a crop which able to accumulate Al fewer, so that Al toxicity was relatively low.
In the soil containing of high aluminum saturation such as several areas in Indonesia, G. sepium grew poorly and had low survival.However, Nusantara (2009) said that Gliricidia crop was suitable for acid and marginal soils.According to Zang et al. (2007), aluminum in low concentration in soil was very helpful to the growth and would be toxic to the crop only when the concentration exceeds a certain threshold.Furthermore, he said that the highest threshold of the Al concentration was 800 mg/kg in the soil caused decreasing of chlorophyll content of leaves, so that assimilation process was disturbed caused crop productivity decrease.Soil used for this study was 1.26 mol or 34000 mg/kg (Table 1).Ying et al. (2006) reported that low aluminum concentration did not affect or increased the crops growth.On the contrary, Liu et al. (2006), in his study showed that surface area and dry weight of leaves of 2 soybean cultivars increased on the Al concentration treatment as much as 200 mg/kg.Furthermore, on the aluminum concentration of 200-400 mg/kg, the crops started showing assimilation rate decreasing caused by leaf stomata closing.Chen et al. (2006), states that with increasing content of Al 3+ on the roots and leaves cause the concentration of Mg in the two organs decreases, consequently photosiyntetic active radiation (PAR) was declined.
According to Soemarno (2005), Al concentration in soil solution was very high when soil pH was low.pH value increased on waterlogged soil and Al concentration on soil solution decreased under critical level of Al poisoning.Al stress treatment at Al saturation index of 25% and 50% decreased dry weight of root of 5 soybean genotypes and increased dry weight of Wilis root.The size of the dry weight decreasing of root depended on type of genotype (Hanum et al. 2007).

Crops growth in the acid soil
Result of analysis of variance showed that C. callothyrsus was significantly (P<0.05)highest tree (122.47 cm) than I. zollingeriana (96.34 cm) and G. sepium (62.83 cm) in 44 weeks old (Table 3).Stem diameter of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 10.21 mm compared to C. callothyrsus and G. sepium by 8.99 and 7.54 mm respectively, whereas stem diameter of C. callothyrsus and G. sepium was not significantly different.Average number of branches of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05) the most by 35.92 branches compared to the other crops, and the lowest was in G. sepium by 7.65 branches.
C. callothyrsus root was significantly (P<0.05)longer by 70.36 cm compared to G. sepium root by 27.19 cm, but it was not significantly different compared to the I. zollingeriana.According to Sumarno (2005), very clear symptoms from the crops which sensitive to acid soil were very stunted growth, tawny leaves, limited rooting growth, flower and seed number forming was minimal, very low productivity or even failed to produce seed.Silveira (2013) said that negative effect of soil acidity to forage growth generally not caused by single factor, but by several factors, which affected normally crops growth.The main factor commonly affected crops growth in the acid soil consisting of toxicity of Hydrogen ion (H + ), aluminum, mangan and essential nutrient deficiency such as phosphor, magnesium, and micronutrient.Aluminum was one of soil elements which able to cause poisoning to surrounding plants environment and inhibited the crops growth (Timotiwu 2010).In line with that, Hadiatmi (2002) said that clear symptoms in the shorgum were stunted growth, dwarf, thicker leaves and were dark green with outskirts purplish leaves or dried.Growth of crops rooting very depended on environment and controlled by activity of the crops.Daniel (2011) said that characteristics of aluminum toxicity symptom included of root defects such as thickened, twisted, short root tip and lateral roots, brown root, and did not have a good branching in rooting system.
According to Rout et al. (2001), Al caused disruption of cell fission on root cap and lateral root, cell rigidity through formation of pectin crosslink on the cell wall, and reduced DNA replication through increasing of double chain rigidity.Haling et al. (2011) said that growth and development of big and long crop root under acid land stress showed that capability of tolerance and adaptation to the acidity and saturation of high Al.The first and most recognized effect of Altoxicity in plants is the inhibition of the division and elongation of meristematic cells and thereby the reduction in root growth (Panda et al. 2003).In line with that, Yoichiro & Midori (2011) said that length root was tolerance indicator of the crops to stress level of aluminum poisoning.Tolerant crops to aluminum would grow well, whereas root of sensitive crops would grow shorter and thick.

Crops production in the acid soil
Dry weight production of I. zollingeriana leaves was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 19.23 g/crop compared to C. callothyrsus and G. sepium by 15.30 and 9.37 g/crop, respectively (Table 4).Dry weight production of C. callothyrsus branch/stem was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 13.39 g/crop than G. sepium by 10.20 g/crop, but dry weight production of branch/stem of I. zollingeriana and C. callothyrsus was not different.
Dry weight production of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 32.06 g/crop compared to C. callothyrsus and G. sepium by 28.70 and 19.58 g/crop, respectively.Leaves/stems ratio of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 3.44 compared to C. callothyrsus and G. sepium by 1.59 and 1.23, respectively.Generally, dry weight production of I. zollingeriana was highest than C. callothyrsus and G. sepium.Chen (2006) and Dewi et al. (2010) said that Al toxicity was the main factor which inhibited crop's productivity in various acid soil throughout the tropics and subtropics.According to Chen et al. (2005b), aluminum stress caused closure of stomata which was responsible to decreasing of CO2 intake, so that the assimilation rate decrease.It affected decreasing of crop production drastically.Ma et al. (2002) said that high Al concentration could disturb soybean growth and damage the rooting, so that absorption of nutrient and water was not optimal and caused low productivity of the crop.Based on Hilman et al. (2004), in the acid land, phosphate (P) availability became the major obstacle to increase.Type of the soils was toxic to crops and needed treatments.At pH ≤5.5, Al-toxicity is the main stress factor for plants which limits crop production (Ryan & Delhaize 2010) legume production.Haling et al. (2011), good crop performance under stress of acid soil and drought was caused by capability to tolerate the stress which was implemented in biomass production of canopy and root which was connected with acquisitions level of nutrient and water.Chen et al. (2005a) said that Al decreased CO2 intake useful in the assimilation process of tangerines (Citrus rehhni), which affected to enzyme activity involved in Calvin cycle.The disruption of the assimilation cycle due to the Al induction caused decreasing of nutrition supply to the crop and decreased the production and quality of crop, especially to the sensitive crop.According to Lynch (2013), tolerant crops showed better rooting performance and it was expected would produce higher biomass.Al-toxicity results in alterations of the physiological and biochemical processes of plants and consequently their productivity (Mora et al. 2006).

Nutrition content and digestibility value of the legumes in the acid soil
Crude protein content (Table 5  In line with Yayneshet et al. (2009) who said that crude protein content of the forage on the semi-acid land in Ethiopia was decrease drastically caused by stress of drought and soil acidity.Binding of Al 3+ to cell membrane phospholipids and transport proteins, reduces the net negative membrane surface charge, permitting the movement of anions and restricting that of cations (Huang et al.1992).The highest fiber content was reached by C. callothyrsus by 30.98% followed by I. zollingeriana and G. sepium by 23.14 and 23.08% respectively.
Higher content of structural component (NDF, ADF, and ADL) was found during dry season, especially in the acid soil possibility was caused by lignification height and stadium of crop maturity (Hussain & Durrani 2009).
Ash content of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)different with C. callothyrsus but significantly not different with the G. sepium.Similarly, Ca and P content of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)different with C. callothyrsus and G. sepium, but Ca and P content of C. callothyrsus was significantly not different with G. sepium.As said by Zhao et al. (2009) that ash level referred to mineral content closely related to soil condition, soil type, fertilizing and irrigation.Furthermore, Silveira (2013) said that negative effect of soil acidity to forage growth, generally not caused by single factor, but by several factors affected normally crop growth.The main factor generally affected crop growth in the acid soil included hydrogen ion (H + ) toxicity, aluminum, mangan, and deficiency of phosphor, magnesium, and micronutrient.Al content could inhibit absorption of essential nutrient, such as Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Mo, and P (Poschenrieder et al. 2008).According to Silveira et al. (2011) optimum absorption of the most soil nutrient was occurred when the soil pH was close to neutral.Availability of several macronutrients (N, P, K, S, Ca, and Mg) decreased as an effect of soil acidity increase, so that lime application in the acid soil tended to increase nutrient availability.Al3+ is known to affect cell membrane structure and permeability by blocking the Ca 2+ channels (Plieth 2005).Yamamoto et al. (1992) said that inhibition of root growth and development due to Al 3+ poisoning, in the long term could cause decreasing of capability to absorb the nutrient, suffering from nutrient (P, Ca, Mg, or Fe) deficiency, so that caused bad effect to the growth and development of the canopy.According to White & Broadley (2003), Ca played important role as nutrient in the crops.As a divalent cation, Ca played role as structural wall and cell membrane participated in root and stem growth.Ca deficiency because of Al 3+ content would affect crop production.Rout et al. (2001) mentioned that Al-induced effects in leaves resemble P deficiencies.
Gross energy value of C. callothyrsus was significantly (P<0.05)higher by 4472 kcal/kg than I. zollingeriana and G. sepium by 4184 and 4162 kcal/kg respectively.According to Dewhurst et al. (2009), gross energy increase of the forage was always in line with dry matter increase, especially to organic matter.Varela de Arruda & Fernandes (2014) said that there was a significant interaction between digestibility of dry material (DM) and gross energy (GE) of the forage which was affected metabolism energy value.Furthermore, it was said by Khachatur (2006) that total content of dry matter of grass that experienced abiotic stress decreased in line with the stress level, as well as its gross energy content.
Digestibility of G. sepium in vitro was significantly (P<0.05)highest by 78.02% compared to I. zollingeriana and G. sepium by 73.75 and 59.89% respectively.Furthermore, digestibility of in vitro organic matter of G. sepium was significantly not different with I. zollingeriana (76.88 vs 76.22), but it was significantly (P<0.05)higher than C. callothyrsus (54.54%).Digestibility value of in vitro dry matter was the number of dry matter, which could be digested and not excreted in the form of fesses, and it was assumed as absorbed part by the animal (Chuzaemi & Bruchem 1990).According to González & Hanselka (2002), digestibility value of organic matter of the forage, from wet season to dry season experienced significant decreasing in line with concentration increase of several fiber-forming components.Based on Nisa et al (2004), digestibility value of grass and legume, generally experienced a decreasing by age increase of the plant and soil water content due to concentration increase of crude fiber in the crop tissue, lignification increase, and leaves/stems ratio decrease.Mora et al. (2006) reported that high concentration of Al 3+ correlated with poor quality of pasture and the higher risk was body weight gain decrease of the animals.
Based on analysis test of nutrient content, all of the legumes planted on the acid soil experienced decreasing from normal condition.Average content of Crude protein of C. calothyrsus by 20.0, 23.1, and 25.7% respectively (Tangendjaja et al. 1991;Tangendjaja et al. 1992;Herdiawan et al. (2014).The smallest crude protein decrease was showed by I. zollingeriana or become more resistant to acid soil.This may be caused by low cation exchange capacity, so that nutrient absorption experienced small obstacles.Other possibility was a root tissue structural damage caused by Al 3+ poisoning, so that root absorption effectivity to water and nutrient in the soil was decrease (Khan et al. 2008).Optimum absorption of partly nutrients was occurred when soil pH was close to neutral.Availability of several macronutrients (N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg) decreased as an effect of increasing of soil acidity, so that lime application in the soil acid tented to increase nutrient availability to corn crop (Baligar et al. 1997).It has been reported that Al inhibits the absorption of nutrients, especially Ca, Mg, Fe and Mo and less available P (Poschenrieder et al. 2008).

CONCLUSION
Al 3+ concentration of I. zollingeriana was lower than C. calothyrsus or that crop was tolerant to acid soil.Conversely, G. sepium was not tolerant causing low growth and productivity.AL 3+ effect was also seen on root morphology, where nodule forming was only occurred on I. zollingeriana.C. callothyrsus root was longer with more root hairs resembling I. zollingeriana, whereas G. sepium root was shorter and the root hair was fewer.C. callothyrsus was more to Al 3+ than G. sepium.Crop height measurement showed that C. calothyrsus was highest, but the stem diameter and the number of the highest branches was found on I. zollingeriana.The highest biomass was found on I. zollingeriana, whereas the fewer biomasses were found on G. sepium.Data analysis of nutrient value also showed that I. zollingeriana was tolerant to the acid soil and could be developed in that environment.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Morfology of leaf in the acid soil

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Morphology of the crops in the acid soil

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Root morphology on the acid soil

Table 1 .
Analysis result of soil from oil palm plantation, Sei Putih, Medan

Table 2 .
Al 3+ concentration of tissue of the three legumes

Table 3 .
Growth of the three legumes in the acid soil in 44 weeks old bNot equal letter in the same column shows a significantly difference (P<0.05)

Table 4 .
) of I. zollingeriana was significantly (P<0.05)highest by 21.80% compared to C. callothyrsus and G. sepium by 16.80 and 16.64 respectively.Average production per harvest of the three legumes in the acid soil cNot equal letter in the same column shows a significantly difference (P<0.05)

Table 5 .
Nutrient content and digestibility value of in vitro of the three legumes