Aquaculture International

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1625–1641 | Cite as

How changes in water quality under the influence of land-based trout farms shape chemism of the recipient streams—case study from Serbia

  • Katarina StojanovićEmail author
  • Miroslav Živić
  • Zoran Marković
  • Jelena Đorđević
  • Jelena Jovanović
  • Ivana Živić


A total of eight trout farms with different production capacities located in highland regions of Serbia were selected for testing of their influence on water parameters of the recipient streams at 46 sites seven times in the course of a year. All of the trout farms can be divided into two groups with respect to the relationship of the values of the parameters recorded at their outlets and downstream sites and those recorded at the control sites. The study showed that trout farms most often cause a statistically significant increase in the contribution of fine particulate organic matter (FPOM %), in the concentrations of NH3, NH4+, and PO43− and in the values of total phosphorous (Pt) and water temperature (tw). On the other hand, they cause a statistically significant decrease in the values of dissolved oxygen. In our study, the parameter defined as the ratio of the annual production of a trout farm to the minimal water discharge (Pr/Qmin) showed a high degree of correlation with the majority of analysed parameters, proven to be a good predictive model for testing the farm’s influence on the recipient stream.


Eutrophication Parameters Recipient streams Trout farms Water quality 



dissolved oxygen


water temperature




total water hardness


total phosphorus




the ionized fraction of ammonia


the un-ionized fraction of ammonia


nitrate anions


chloride anions


sulphate anions


the ratio of production of the trout farm in tonnes to water flow in the dry season


fish farm’s outlet


fine particulate organic matter



We would like to express our gratitude to fish farmers for their collaboration. Many thanks to Dalibor and Ivan Stojanović for their help with fieldwork.

Funding information

The study was supported by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (TR 31075).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10499_2019_414_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 37 kb)
10499_2019_414_MOESM2_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 (DOCX 36 kb)
10499_2019_414_MOESM3_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary Table 3 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Axler RP, Tikkanen C, Henneck J, Schuldt J, McDonald M (1997) Characteristics of effluent and sludge from two commercial rainbow trout farms in Minnesota. Prog Fish Cult 59:161–172.<0161:ACOEAS>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoli M, Nizzoli D, Longhi D, Laini A, Viaroli P (2007) Impact of a trout farm on the water quality of an Apennine creek from daily budgets of nutrients. Chem Ecol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergheim A, Brinker A (2003) Effluent treatment for flow through systems and European environmental regulations. Aquac Eng 27:61–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjelanović K, Živić I, Dulić Z, Živić M, Đorđević J, Marinković S, Marković Z (2013) Water quality assessment in the Raška river based on zoobenthos and zooplankton organisms as bioindicators. Paper presented at the VI International conference “Water & Fish”. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade. Belgrade, Serbia, 12–14 JuneGoogle Scholar
  6. Boaventura R, Pedro AM, Coimbra J, Lencastre E (1997) Trout farm effluents: characterization and impact on the receiving streams. Environ Pollut 95:379–387. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Camargo JA, Alonso Á (2006) Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: a global assessment. Environ Int 32:831–849. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Camargo JA, Gonzalo C (2007) Physicochemical and biological changes downstream from a trout farm outlet: comparing 1986 and 2006 sampling surveys. Limnetica 26:405–414Google Scholar
  9. Camargo JA, Gonzalo C, Alonso Á (2011) Assessing trout farm pollution by biological metrics and indices based on aquatic macrophytes and benthic macroinvertebrates: a case study. Ecol Indic 11:911–917. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr OJ, Goulder R (1990a) Fish-farm effluents in rivers—I. Effects on bacterial populations and alkaline phosphatase activity. Water Res 24:631–638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr OJ, Goulder R (1990b) Fish-farm effluents in rivers—II. Effects on inorganic nutrients, algae and the macrophyte Ranunculus penicillatus. Water Res 24:639–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cripps SJ, Bergheim A (2000) Solids management and removal for intensive land-based aquaculture production systems. Aquac Eng 22:33–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalsgaard J, Pedersen PB (2011) Solid and suspended/dissolved waste (N, P, O) from rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 313:92–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emerson K, Russo RC, Lund RE, Thurston RV (1975) Aqueous ammonia equilibrium calculations: effect of pH and temperature. J Fish Res Board Can 32:2379–2383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy. Available via Accessed 18 Sept 2018
  16. FAO (2016) Global aquaculture for Oncorhynchus mykiss 1950–2014 (online query). In: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available via Accessed 18 Sept 2018
  17. Foy RH, Rosell R (1991) Fractionation of phosphorus and nitrogen loadings from a Northern Ireland fish farm. Aquaculture 96:31–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guilpart A, Roussel J-M, Aubin J, Caquet T, Marle M, Le Bris H (2012) The use of benthic invertebrate community and water quality analyses to assess ecological consequences of fish farm effluents in rivers. Ecol Indic 23:356–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakovljević O, Popović S, Živić I, Stojanović K, Krizmanić J (2016a) Benthic diatoms of the Vrla River (Serbia) and their application in the water ecological status assessment. Oceanol Hydrobiol St 45:304–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jakovljević OS, Popović SS, Vidaković DP, Stojanović KZ, Krizmanić JŽ (2016b) The application of benthic diatoms in water quality assessment (Mlava River, Serbia). Acta Bot Croat 75:199–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kırkağaç MU, Pulatsu S, Topcu A (2009) Trout farm effluent effects on water sediment quality and benthos. CLEAN Soil Air Water 37:386–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koçer MAT, Sevgili H (2014) Parameters selection for water quality index in the assessment of the environmental impacts of land-based trout farms. Ecol Indic 36:672–681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lalonde BA, Ernst W, Garron C (2015) Chemical and physical characterisation of effluents from land-based fish farms in Atlantic Canada. Aquacult Int 23:535–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liao PB (1970) Pollution potential of salmonid fish hatcheries. Water Sew Works 117:291–297Google Scholar
  25. MacMillan JR, Huddleston T, Woolley M, Fothergill K (2003) Best management practice development to minimize environmental impact from large flow-through trout farms. Aquaculture 226:91–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maillard VM, Boardman GD, Nyland JE, Kuhn DD (2005) Water quality and sludge characterization at raceway-system trout farms. Aquac Eng 33:271–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marković Z, Stanković M, Dulić Z, Živić I, Rašković B, Spasić M, Poleksić V (2011) Aquaculture and fishery in Serbia: status and potentials. In: International Conference Aquaculture and Fishery, 5, Faculty of Agriculture – University of Belgrade, Belgrade (Serbia), 1-3 Jun 2011Google Scholar
  28. Milošević D, Stojanović K, Djurdjević A, Marković Z, Stojković Piperac M, Živić M, Živić I (2018) The response of chironomid taxonomy-and functional trait-based metrics to fish farm effluent pollution in lotic systems. Environ Pollut 242:1058–1066. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mirčić D, Stojanović K, Živić I, Todorović D, Stojanović D, Dolićanin Z, Perić-Mataruga V (2016) The trout farm effect on Dinocrasmegacephala (Plecoptera: Perlidae) larvae: Antioxidative defense. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:1775–1782. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Naylor S, Brisson J, Labelle M, Drizo A, Comeau Y (2003) Treatment of freshwater fish farm effluent using constructed wetlands: the role of plants and substrate. Water Sci Technol 48:215–222. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Newman M (1995) Quantitative methods in aquatic ecotoxicology. Advances in trace substances research. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Noroozrajabi A, Ghorbani R, Abdi O, Nabavi E (2013) The impact of rainbow trout farm effluents on water physicochemical properties of Daryasar stream. World J Fish Mar Sci 5:342–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oberdorff T, Porcher JP (1994) An index of biotic integrity to assess biological impacts of salmonid farm effluents on receiving waters. Aquaculture 119:219–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfaff JD (1993) Determination of inorganic anions by ion chromatography. EPA method 300.0, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U.S. Cincinnati: Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  35. Pulatsu S, Rad F, Köksal G, Aydın F, Benli AK, Topçu A (2004) The impact of rainbow trout farm effluents on water quality of Karasu stream, Turkey. Turk J Fish Aquat Sc 4:9–15Google Scholar
  36. Sindilariu P-D, Wolter C, Reiter R (2008) Constructed wetlands as a treatment method for effluents from intensive trout farms. Aquaculture 277:179–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Škunca-Milovanović S, Feliks R, Đurović B, Poček B (1990) Drinking water: standard methods for testing hygienic safety. The Federal Institute for Health Protection NIP “economic review” (In Serbian)Google Scholar
  38. Stojanović K (2017) Influence of trout farms on macrozoobentos communities with special emphasis on larvae of the genus Baetis (Ephemeroptera, Insecta). Dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  39. Stojanović K, Živić M, Dulić Z, Marković Z, Krizmanić J, Milošević D, Miljanović B, Jovanović J, Vidaković D, Živić I (2017) Comparative study of the effects of a small-scale trout farm on the macrozoobenthos, potamoplankton, and epilithic diatom communities. Environ Monit Assess 189:403. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tahar A, Kennedy AM, Fitzgerald RD, Clifford E, Rowan N (2018) Longitudinal evaluation of the impact of traditional rainbow trout farming on receiving water quality in Ireland. PeerJ 6:e5281. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Tekinay AA, Guroy D, Cevik N (2009) The environmental effect of a land-based trout farm on Yuvarlakcay, Turkey. Ekoloji 19:65–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tello A, Corner RA, Telfer TC (2010) How do land-based salmonid farms affect stream ecology? Environ Pollut 158:1147–1158. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. TEPCD (2006) The European Parliament and the Council Directive 2006/44/EC of 6 September 2006, on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. In: Official Journal of the European Union, L 264/20. Available via Accessed 18 Sept 2018
  44. US EPA (1979) EPA methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4–79-020, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  45. Vidaković D, Šovran S., Lazović V., Stojanović K., Živić I, Krizmanić J (2016) The impact of trout farm effluent on diatoms richness in the Rasina river (Serbia). In: 5th Congress of ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, Ohrid, Macedonia, 19-22 October 2016Google Scholar
  46. Vranković J, Živić M, Radojević A, Perić-Mataruga V, Todorović D, Marković Z, Živić I (2018) Evaluation of oxidative stress biomarkers in the freshwater gammarid Gammarus dulensis exposed to trout farm outputs. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 163:84–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yalcuk A, Pakdil N, Kantürer O (2014) Investigation of the effects of fish farms in Bolu (Turkey) on aquatic pollution. Int J Agric Food Res 3(1):1–13Google Scholar
  48. Živić I, Marković Z, Filipović-Rojka Z, Živić M (2009a) Influence of a trout farm on water quality and macrozoobenthos communities of the receiving stream (Trešnjica River, Serbia). Int Rev Hydrobiol 94:673–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Živić I, Marković Z, Živić M (2009b) Influence of a trout farm on macrozoobenthos communities of the Trešnjica River, Serbia. Arch Biol Sci 61:483–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Živić I, Živić M, Bjelanović K, Milošević D, Stanojlović S, Daljević R, Marković Z (2014) Global warming effects on benthic macroinvertebrates: a model case study from a small geothermal stream. Hydrobiologia 732:147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarina Stojanović
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miroslav Živić
    • 1
  • Zoran Marković
    • 2
  • Jelena Đorđević
    • 3
  • Jelena Jovanović
    • 3
  • Ivana Živić
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of BiologyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Anahem d.o.o.BelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations