## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pey Organisms** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%N**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%W**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%F**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**IRI**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\%RI**} \\ \hline
**Macura** & & **Blue** & **Green** & **White** & **Blue** & **Green** & **White** & **Blue** & **Green** & **White** & **Blue** & **Green** & **White** & **Blue** & **Green** & **White** \\ \hline Caridea & _Gammarilate sp._ & 81.7 & 88.4 & 84.8 & 6.5 & 21.9 & 5.0 & 6.9 & 23.3 & 21.1 & 608.5 & 2456.3 & 1890.6 & 27.2 & 68.8 & 58.4 \\  & _Cranogen sp._ & 2 & 87.6 & 6.3 & 3.2 & 18.5 & 10.8 & 12.2 & 31.0 & 39.5 & 21.1 & 842.6 & 674.5 & 325.2 & 37.6 & 18.9 & 10.0 \\  & _Hippenakte sp._ & 1.6 & 1.8 & 3.2 & 15.0 & 19.9 & 12.7 & 10.3 & 11.6 & 15.8 & 172.6 & 252.4 & 251.5 & 7.7 & 7.1 & 7.8 \\  & _Ealuks sp._ & 2.6 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 10.6 & 26.2 & 3.6 & 10.3 & 2.3 & 5.3 & 136.7 & 62.8 & 23.1 & 6.1 & 1.8 & 0.7 \\  & _Cranogen sp._ & 1.2 & 1.2 & 1.6 & 1.6 & 16.3 & 4.4 & 10.2 & 13.8 & 7.0 & 5.3 & 261.0 & 39.1 & 62.1 & 11.6 & 1.1 & 1.9 \\  & _Larketing almoprax_ & 1.4 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 12.7 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 6.9 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 98.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 4.4 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\  & _Carpula sp._ & 0.0 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 2.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.5 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\  & _Portraulter sp._ & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.1 & 3.4 & 4.1 & 0.2 & 6.9 & 2.3 & 0.0 & 10.9 & 10.1 & 0.0 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.0 \\  & _Tridhemidani_ & 0.5 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 11.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 6.9 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 81.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 3.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\  & _Incrith_ & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 3.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 5.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 21.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.7 \\ Pisces & Unidentified & 0.2 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 5.8 & 8.6 & 17.8 & 3.4 & 7.0 & 5.3 & 20.9 & 65.2 & 97.6 & 0.9 & 1.8 & 3.0 \\ Polythedra & _Perneris sp._ & 0.0 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 2.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 2.8 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.1 & 0.0 \\ \hline Decapoda & _Aroquerqueris_ sp. & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 5.4 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 5.3 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 32.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 \\ Isopola & _Isopola sp._ & 0.5 & 0.2 & 4.0 & 1.8 & 3.0 & 29.7 & 3.4 & 2.3 & 15.8 & 7.9 & 7.5 & 532.9 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 16.5 \\ \hline Total & & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 & & & & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Composition of the stomach contents of bluefin sea robins by frequency of occurrence, number of individuals, and index of relative importance. and lugworms [6; 7]. The bluefin sea robins inhabiting the East China Sea feed mainly on shellfish and fish, while the bluefin sea robins inhabiting the eastern side of the Mediterranean Sea feed mainly on tiny shrimps and decapods [5; 43]. Although the bluefin sea robin species vary in their main prey organism according to region, they are known to prefer benthic crustaceans [6; 7]. The results of bluefin sea robin stomach content analyses were in agreement with the results of previous studies. The dominant species in the stomach contents of bluefin sea robin was amphipods for both control and experimental groups. The variation in amphiopod content in the stomach is presumed to have caused the differences in catch. The bluefin sea robin caught in pots with green LED lights showed a higher frequency and weight of amphiopods in the stomach contents than those in other experimental pots. This could be attributed to the distribution of amphipods gathered around LED lights on the inside and the outside of the pot when the bluefin sea robin entered the pot for feeding. This presumption is supported by previous studies on the phototaxis of amphipods that are known to show positive phototaxis to stimulation with low-intensity light [44]. The response spectrum of amphipods is known to show a low threshold during the night at 460-600 nm [45]. The LED spectrum used in this study was distributed within the response spectrum of amphiopods. In addition, laboratory studies on marine invertebrates, such as amphipods, have shown that they gathered around low-intensity light rather than high-intensity light [46; 47].