United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Plant Protection 

and Quarantine

April 15, 2016

Rhagoletis cerasi (Linnaeus)

European cherry fruit fly

Diptera: Tephritidae

Agency Contact:

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

1730 Varsity Drive, Ste. 300

Raleigh, NC 27606
April 15, 2016 1

.

Synonyms: None. While there are some historical names listed as synonyms, none have been considered to 

be of importance or in regular use since at least 1900 (CABI, 2016).

In Europe, Rhagoletis cerasi was thought to have two geographic races, referred to as northern and 

southern races. The southern race is found in Italy, Switzerland, southern Germany, southwestern France, 

and southern parts of Austria; the northern race ranges north of those parts from the Atlantic Ocean to the 

Black Sea (White and Elson-Harris, 1992). However, it was determined that these “races” were actually 

differences in the Wolbachia bacterium carried by the fruit fly. Boller et al. (1976) found unidirectional 

mating incompatibility between the two races. This causes southern females and northern males to be 

interfertile and crosses between southern males and northern females to be sterile (Riegler and Stauffer, 

2002; Schuler et al., 2016).

Prevalence and global distribution: Asia – Georgia (Republic of) (CABI, 2016), Iran (CABI, 2016), 

Kazakhstan (CABI, 2016), Kyrgyzstan (CABI, 2016), Tajikistan (CABI, 2016), Turkey (Kovanci and 

Kovanci, 2006b), Turkmenistan (CABI, 2016),Uzbekistan (CABI, 2016); Europe – Austria (Boller et al., 

1976), Belgium (CABI, 2016), Bulgaria (Boller et al., 1976), Croatia (Riegler and Stauffer, 2002), Czech 

Republic (Riegler and Stauffer, 2002), Czechoslovakia (former) (Baker and Miller, 1978), Denmark 

(CABI, 2016), Estonia (CABI, 2016), France (Boller et al., 1976), Germany (Boller et al., 1976), Greece 

(Boller et al., 1976), Hungary (Boller et al., 1976), Italy (Boller et al., 1976), Latvia (Stalažs, 2012), 

Lithuania (White and Elson-Harris, 1992), Moldova (CABI, 2016), Netherlands (Boller et al., 1976), 

Norway (Jaastad, 1994), Poland (Boller et al., 1976), Portugal (CABI, 2016), Romania (Boller et al., 1976), 

Russia (White and Elson-Harris, 1992) (Eastern Siberia, Russia (Europe), Siberia, Western Siberia [CABI, 

2016]), Serbia (Stamenković et al., 2012), Slovakia (Boller et al., 1976), Slovenia (Riegler and Stauffer, 

2002), Spain (Boller et al., 1976), Sweden (White and Elson-Harris, 1992), Switzerland (Jaastad, 1998), 

Ukraine (Riegler and Stauffer, 2002), Yugoslavia (Boller et al., 1976).

Host range: Caprifoliaceae – Lonicera tatarica (Boller and Prokopy, 1976; Daniel and Grunder, 2012), 

Lonicera xylosteum (honeysuckle) (Boller et al., 1998; Jaastad, 1998); Rosaceae - Prunus avium (sweet 

cherry) (Daniel and Grunder, 2012; Kovanci and Kovanci, 2006b), Prunus cerasus (sour cherry) (Boller 

and Bush, 1974; Daniel and Grunder, 2012), Prunus mahaleb (mahaleb cherry) (Boller and Bush, 1974; 

Daniel and Grunder, 2012), Prunus serotina (black cherry) (Daniel and Grunder, 2012).

Higher population levels are generally observed in sweet cherry orchards, and sour cherry orchards 

generally do not incur as high infestation levels (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Sour cherries may provide an 

alternative oviposition site when sweet cherries are harvested or highly infested (Kovanci and Kovanci, 

2006a). Rhagoletis cerasi may also move on to Lonicera berries after cherries have been exhausted for 

oviposition or harvested (Boller et al., 1998; Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Flies that emerge from Lonicera

berries show a strong preference for ovipositioning in Lonicera (Boller et al., 1998) and are less likely to 

serve as a secondary source for reinfestation (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Rhagoletis cerasi has also been 

reported infesting Berberis vulgaris (Hendel, 1927 as referenced by CABI, 2016), Lycium barbarum, and 

Vaccinium myrtillus (Phillips, 1947 as referenced by CABI, 2016), though these appear to be 

misidentifications or casual observations (CABI, 2016; White and Elson-Harris, 1992) and are not 

considered host plants. 

Biology: Rhagoletis cerasi has one generation per year and a narrow host range (Boller et al., 1976; Daniel 

and Grunder, 2012). Overwintering is obligatory and occurs in the soil near host plants as pupae (Daniel 

and Grunder, 2012). Single eggs are deposited in each fruit, which are then marked with a pheromone that 

repels other ovipositing females to maximize use of the host resources (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Adult 

emergence is based on spring soil temperatures, overwintering temperatures, host plants the pupae 

originated from, and geographic location (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). The lifespan under field conditions is 

likely between four to seven weeks (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). A mating pheromone is used, though it 

does not appear to have attraction properties over longer distances (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Cherry fruit 
April 15, 2016 2

that is changing from green to yellow, with a hardened pit and at least 5 mm pulp-thickness, is preferred for 

oviposition (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Egg laying begins as soon as fruit begins to change color and 

continues until harvest (Höhn et al., 2012). In the field, fecundity ranges from 30 to 200 eggs per female 

(Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Larvae tunnel through the cherry fruit, consuming the pulp (Daniel and 

Grunder, 2012). Mature larvae exit fruit, generally near the stem, around harvest time, to pupate in the soil 

(Daniel and Grunder, 2012). A chilling period of approximately 180 days below 5 °C is required for 

maximum adult emergence (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Some pupae may remain in diapause for an 

additional year or more (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Population densities in Europe cycle, with four to five 

year periods of high densities followed by a period of very low density (Daniel and Grunder, 2012).

Rhagoletis cerasi populations are infected with multiple strains of Wolbachia, a bacterium that is 

maternally inherited (Arthofer et al., 2009). The wCer2 strain of Wolbachia is widespread in the southern 

European population and causes unidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility with the northern population. 

Southern females produce viable offspring with northern males, but progeny of southern males and northern 

females are sterile (Arthofer et al., 2009; Riegler and Stauffer, 2002).

Rhagoletis cerasi occurs on two host plants, Prunus and Lonicera (Boller et al., 1998; Boller and Bush, 

1974), which have been described as potential host races due to the populations having different emergence 

times that could be the result of an adaptation to the host plants (Boller and Bush, 1974). Experiments in 

crossing the Prunus and Lonicera races have demonstrated no evidence of incompatibility (Boller and 

Bush, 1974), and a genetic study has found no allele patterns suggestive of host races (Schwarz et al., 

2003). Adults show a strong preference to oviposition in the same host (cherry or Lonicera berries) from 

which they emerged (Boller et al., 1998; Daniel and Grunder, 2012), though adult R. cerasi move to 

neighboring trees of later-ripening varieties or Lonicera spp. bushes in search of suitable oviposition sites 

(Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Populations growing on Lonicera spp. in the shady forest edge have later 

emergence, flight, and oviposition periods than populations growing in cherry orchards (Boller et al., 

1998).

Similar species in the United States: We have several other Rhagoletis species that also infest sweet and 

sour cherries already present and requiring control measures in the United States. Rhagoletis cingulata

(eastern United States and Canada to central Mexico) and R. indifferens (northwestern United States and 

southwestern Canada) are already established in the North American Plant Protection Organization 

(NAPPO) region as significant pests of sweet and sour cherry production (Yee et al., 2013). Rhagoletis 

cingulata was first detected in Europe in 1983 and can be found in some of the same European regions as 

R. cerasi (Egartner et al., 2010; Lampe et al., 2005). Rhagoletis indifferens has not been detected outside of 

North America (Egartner et al., 2010; Yee et al., 2013). Rhagoletis fausta also infests sweet and sour 

cherries and is present in North America (Yee et al., 2013). It is not, however, closely related to R. 

cingulata and R. indifferens, and does not appear to be as economically significant in cherry production 

(Yee et al., 2013). If R. cerasi were to establish in the United States, it is uncertain whether control 

measures already in place for other Rhagoletis species would be as effective for mitigating impacts, or if 

additional actions would be required.

Known pest status: Rhagoletis cerasi is considered the most important pest of sweet cherries in Europe. 

Without effective control measures, up to 100 percent of sweet cherry fruit may be infested (Daniel and 

Grunder, 2012). Sour cherries may also be damaged, though unprotected infestation rates are closer to 30 

percent (Olszak and Maciesiak, 2004). Backyard cherry orchards are more likely to be impacted by R. 

cerasi infestations than larger commercial orchards due to fewer control measures being implemented. In 

Serbia, up to 10 percent of cherries in commercial production are damaged, and up to 100 percent in 

orchards or solitary trees without conventional control measures in place (Stamenković et al., 2012). 

Damage thresholds related to infestations of R. cerasi may vary based on market order. Based on reports in 

the literature, they typically range from 2 to 4 percent of marketable fruit for consumption and up to 6 

percent for industrial processing (UNECE, 2010; Stamenković et al., 2012). It is unclear where rejected 
April 15, 2016 3

cherries are diverted to, but it is reported that this results in significant economic impacts for growers 

(Stamenković et al., 2012).

Potential pathways of introduction: At this time, there are no clear open pathways for introduction of R. 

cerasi into the United States. The most likely pathway for introduction of R. cerasi into the United States is 

through the importation of infested cherry fruit; however, there is no indication of an open commercial 

pathway of commercial cherry fruit imported from regions where R. cerasi is known to be established. 

Cherries (Prunus avium) may be imported into all U.S. ports from Argentina, Australia (including 

Tasmania), Canada, Chile, and New Zealand (APHIS, 2016a). The Republic of Korea and Japan (except 

for Amami, Bonin, Ryukyu, Tokara, and Volcano Islands) may export to Guam and the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and South Africa may export to ports within the continental United States (APHIS, 2016a). 

Cherries grown in fruit fly free areas of Mexico may export to all U.S. ports; cherries grown outside of fruit 

fly free areas may export to North Atlantic ports only, with cold treatment (APHIS, 2016a). Rhagoletis 

cerasi is not known to be established in any of these regions from which cherry imports are permitted. 

Between 1988 and 2015, R. cerasi immatures have been intercepted 113 times in fruit in baggage at U.S. 

ports of entry (PestID, 2016). The risk of establishment based on larvae in baggage is likely to be low; 

larvae would have to emerge from the cherries, mature, and find suitable mates and host plants (i.e., 

infested cherries would need to be placed near host plants). 

It is also possible that pupae within the soil accompanying plants for planting could transport Rhagoletis

spp. long distances (CABI and EPPO, 2004). However, given the limited mobility of larvae prior to 

pupation in the soil, trees would have to be fruit bearing prior to shipment and accompanied by soil in order 

for pupae to be in the soil beneath. Some Prunus propagative material is imported from European 

countries, though under strict regulations that would prevent an introduction of R. cerasi (among other 

pests) into the United States (Podleckis, 2016). Most Prunus material that enters the United States is 

imported as dormant bud stick or as bare root trees, and is subject to size regulations for Asian longhorned 

beetle and citrus longhorned beetle (Podleckis, 2016; PPQ, 2016). It is therefore highly unlikely that R. 

cerasi would be introduced into the United States with propagative material.

The potential for an open pathway for introduction would increase if R. cerasi were confirmed in Canada. 

In 2015, Canada exported $25.8 million worth of fresh cherries for consumption into the United States 

(FAS, 2016). Inspection may not be sufficient for detecting infested cherries, as only fruits with a fully 

grown larva will show clear symptoms of being less firm (Caruso and Cera, 2004). Additionally, while 

likely a limited risk, there is also the possibility of a slow natural spread of R. cerasi from Canada into the 

United States, particularly if there are cherry production fields near the border. 

If R. cerasi is confirmed to be present in Canada, it is possible that it was imported with fresh cherry fruit 

from areas in Europe where it is known to occur. Based on available information regarding the import 

regulations for Canada, at this time fresh cherry fruit is allowed from Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, 

Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, and former Yugoslavia with no specific plant protection requirements (CFIA, 

2016). However, we do not know whether or not fresh cherry fruit is currently being imported from these 

areas. 

Potential distribution in the United States and spread: Rhagoletis cerasi requires 430 degree days above 

a base developmental temperature of 5 °C for adult emergence (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Additionally, 

multiple studies regarding the obligatory winter diapause indicate that maximum emergence of adults 

occurred in association with 180 days below 5 °C (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). The above data were 

combined in order to develop the predictive map of the most suitable areas for R. cerasi establishment 

shown below (Fowler et al., 2016). The potential for establishment of R. cerasi is highest in the red regions, 

and considered very low to negligible for the gray. Counties in the conterminous United States that produce 

cherries are most at risk and are outlined below.
April 15, 2016 4

Adults rarely move far from their host plants, though some dispersive flights do occur when nearby host 

resources are depleted (Boller et al., 1976). Dispersal flights are likely to only occur when fruits suitable for 

oviposition are not available (e.g., cherries destroyed by frost or early harvest, or already marked with hostmarking pheromone) (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Within orchards, adult R. cerasi may move to 

neighboring trees of later-ripening varieties or Lonicera spp. bushes in search of suitable oviposition sites 

(Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Daniel and Baker (2013) reviewed the current knowledge of R. cerasi spread 

and reported that while it can fly more than one kilometer in 24 hours in the laboratory, the majority of flies 

in the field move less than 100 meters, and none more than 600 meters. Wind may also play a role in the 

local spread of R. cerasi adults (Daniel and Baker, 2013). The spread of R. cerasi in the United States 

would likely be slowed by both the lack of self-motility and also the current domestic restrictions on 

movement of cherry fruit due to the presence of R. indifferens and R. cingulata (Yee et al., 2013). Within 

the United States, Florida, Idaho, and California have implemented regulations for importation of host 

commodities associated with R. cingulata, R. indifferens, and R. fausta (Yee et al., 2013).

Detection: The timing of the infestation and subsequent harvest of cherries can make detection of infested 

fruit difficult. The initial emergence of adult flies can vary significantly depending on climate, altitude, 

latitude, slope, and other environmental factors (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Damaged fruits are not always 

easily detectable, as only fruits with a fully grown larva will show clear symptoms of being less firm 

(Caruso and Cera, 2004). Yellow sticky traps are commonly used and are the recommended type of trap for 

monitoring adults of R. cerasi (Daniel and Baker, 2013; Kovanci and Kovanci, 2006a; Russ et al., 1973), 

though they are unreliable for detecting first adult emergence where populations are low (Kovanci and 

Kovanci, 2006b). Lampe et al. (2005) noted that in areas where both species are present in Europe, 

Pherocon ® AM Traps widely used in the United States are more effective for monitoring adult flight of R. 

cingulata; Rebell ® Yellow Traps as used in Europe are more effective for monitoring R. cerasi. 

Researchers in Europe continue to work to develop the most effective trap size, shape, and color for 

monitoring adult emergence and presence/absence of R. cerasi (Daniel et al., 2014). While trap shape 

appears to be minimally important to fly capture rates, a cylinder shape with a height of 20 cm and 

circumference of 54 cm was shown to have the best economic and practical considerations (Daniel et al., 

2014). Updated trap densities for Rhagoletis spp. are included on page 18 of the FAO IAEA Trapping 

Manual for Area-Wide Fruit Fly Programs (FAO and IAEA, 2013), indicating both trap types and densities 

and attractant recommendations for a variety of monitoring, detection, and control scenarios. A mating 
April 15, 2016 5

pheromone is used, though it does not appear to have attraction properties over longer distances. Additional 

research may result in more effective traps (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Rhagoletis cerasi can be 

differentiated from other fruit flies morphologically (Daniel and Grunder, 2012).

Rhagoletis cerasi is listed in the CAPS Stone Fruit Survey Guidelines (CAPS, 2012). The current CAPSapproved survey method includes the use of a yellow sticky card baited with ammonium acetate and 

protein hydrolysate embedded in the adhesive (CAPS, 2012).

Control: The establishment of R. cerasi in the United States would likely require additional control 

measures beyond those already in place in cherry production. The Rhagoletis species already present in the 

United States are controlled through rigorous IPM processes, and conventionally produced sweet cherries 

are rarely infested (Smith and Kupferman, 2002). In Europe, R. cerasi is the only insect pest of cherry that 

requires treatment of fruit (Daniel and Baker, 2013). Timing of measures is critical to obtain sufficient 

control to reduce impacts in the fruit. Peak activity of the American cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cingulata) 

occurs two weeks later than the peak activity of R. cerasi (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Peak activity of R. 

indifferens may also vary from these species. Additionally, the American cherry fruit fly tends to more 

frequently infest sour cherry species, while the European cherry fruit fly infests sweeter cherry species 

(Lampe et al., 2005). However, chemical control measures do appear highly effective when properly timed 

and applied. In European commercial orchards where conventional insecticides were used, damage 

attributed to R. cerasi infestations was less than 0.1 percent (Kovanci and Kovanci, 2006b). The 

commercial orchards received six to seven applications of malathion throughout the season (Kovanci and 

Kovanci, 2006b). In Europe, neonicotinoids and pyrethroids were noted as the most commonly used 

chemical control measure against R. cerasi in cherry production (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). In the United 

States, careful planning and monitoring is required to sufficiently manage the Rhagoletis species already 

present (Smith and Kupferman, 2002). Additional measures are likely to be required to continue to be able 

to meet various infestation thresholds, such as the zero tolerance level seen in Washington for fruit fly 

infestations (Smith and Kupferman, 2002). 

The application of an entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, is an effective control measure used in 

organic cherry production during the flight period of R. cerasi (Daniel and Wyss, 2010). Netting to cover 

the soil in smaller-scale organic cherry production was found to significantly reduce flight activity and fruit 

infestation by R. cerasi (Daniel and Baker, 2013). Exclusion netting (1.3 mm net) placed on the cherry trees 

has also shown to be as effective as some chemical control measures (Brand et al., 2013; Grassi et al., 

2010; Höhn et al., 2012; Ughini et al., 2010). Nets must be placed as early as possible after the first adult 

capture or when the fruit color changes, and remain in place until harvest (Höhn et al., 2012; Ughini et al., 

2010). Early and complete harvest of cherries was the most effective control before insecticides were 

available (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Mass trapping using yellow sticky traps and/or baits have also shown 

to be economically prohibitive in commercial cherry production (Daniel and Grunder, 2012) but are widely 

used in organic cherry production (Daniel and Grunder, 2012; Daniel and Wyss, 2010).

Orchard management is also important to minimize impacts from R. cerasi infestations. This may include 

pruning of trees to 10 m in order to improve spray coverage and facilitate the early and complete harvest of 

fruit; choosing varieties that further facilitate early harvest, including varieties that are suitable for 

mechanical harvest; and not dropping infested fruit on the ground. Allowing grass under trees to grow may 

further delay adult emergence by 10 days (Daniel and Grunder, 2012).

Chemical management used in Europe to control R. cerasi in commercial orchards includes acetamiprid, 

alpha-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, dimethoate, etofenprox, fosmet, gammacyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin (bait sprays), lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, methomyl, pyrethroids, 

thiacloprid, thiamethoxam, and zeta-cypermethrin. In organic orchards, management includes azadirachtin, 

Beauveria bassiana, pyrethrum, and spinosad (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). From these measures, 

acetamiprid, dimethoate, gamma-cyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, thiamethoxam, zetacypermethrin, azadirachtin, Beauveria bassiana, and spinosad are currently labeled for use in sweet and/or 
April 15, 2016 6

sour cherry production in the United States (CDMS, 2016). A study comparing efficacy of thiamethoxam 

and acetamiprid against the former standard dimethoate, which is no longer registered for use in some 

countries due to ecotoxicity and residues on fruit, found all three were effective (Höhn et al., 2012). 

Some biological control measures such as viruses, bacteria, entomopathogenic nematodes, parasitoids, and 

predators have either not been shown to be effective or not been researched enough to determine 

effectiveness against R. cerasi (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Sterile insect technique was researched, 

developed, and found to be an effective control measure between 1960 and 1980 (Daniel and Grunder, 

2012). However, the life cycle of R. cerasi (e.g., univoltine, obligatory diapause) complicated rearing and 

inhibited commercial use (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). Bait sprays are more effective in isolated orchards 

where risk of reinfestation from surrounding areas is minimal, or as part of an area-wide treatment 

(Böckmann et al., 2013). 

Potential economic impacts: A predictive pest impact assessment conducted and reviewed by analysts 

within PPQ-CPHST-PERAL determined that R. cerasi would be a high-impact pest in both unmitigated 

and mitigated systems (PERAL, 2016). This pest is difficult to control and can cause significant damage to 

the value of the fruit. It is a well-studied species and is considered a serious pest in the scientific literature 

(PERAL, 2016). After consideration of current U.S. conditions, the predicted impact for this pest remains 

high in mitigated systems. While control measures for American cherry fruit fly species (R. cingulata and 

R. indifferens) are currently in place, phenological differences will likely necessitate additional control 

measures for R. cerasi. Additionally, the potential phase-out of broad-spectrum insecticides may ultimately 

increase the cost and difficulty of controlling both American and European species (PERAL, 2016). 

Typically, R. cerasi has been controlled with broad-spectrum insecticides such as Dimethoate. However, as 

these insecticides are being phased out of use due to ecotoxicity and residual persistence concerns, control 

is likely to become more difficult and more expensive. If R. cerasi became established in the United States, 

it would likely require additional controls beyond what is already in place in U.S. cherry production. 

Phenological differences between American cherry fruit fly species and the European cherry fruit fly will 

likely require growers to spray insecticides more often in order to control all pests (PERAL, 2016).

The value of fresh sweet cherry production in the United States in 2014 totaled $705.5 million, and fresh 

sour cherry production totaled $2.4 million (NASS, 2016). Even in conventional commercial production of 

cherries in Europe, up to 10 percent of the fruit has been damaged (Stamenković et al., 2012). Although 

infestation rates normally remain below 20 percent in Europe, the market is reported to reject the whole lot 

if infestation exceeds 2 percent (Daniel and Grunder, 2012). After being rejected as fresh cherries for 

consumption, the lot is likely sold as distilling cherries at a significant reduction in price (Daniel and

Grunder, 2012). The United States also has very low tolerance levels for Rhagoletis infestations in fresh 

cherry fruit, as can be seen in the zero tolerance level in fruit produced in Washington State for export to 

California or foreign countries (Smith and Kupferman, 2002). When a single R. indifferens larvae is found 

(reportedly five to twenty times per season), the entire shipment is rejected and inspection efforts are 

increased (Smith and Kupferman, 2002).

Trade implications: Rhagoletis cerasi is considered a regulated organism by Algeria, Argentina, Canada, 

Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, 

Nigeria, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Timor-Leste (PExD, 2016). In 2015, the United States 

exported fresh cherry fruit valued at $431 million (FAS, 2016) to many different countries. Table 1 

includes exports that exceeded $1 million in 2015, the full list of exports are included in table form in the 

Appendix. Notably, significant amounts of cherry fruit were exported to multiple countries in which R. 

cerasi is considered a regulated organism including Canada (valued at $109 million in 2015), South Korea 

($108 million), Japan ($32 million), Taiwan ($31 million), and Thailand ($5.5 million) (FAS, 2016). 

Table 1. Value of fresh cherry exports from the United States that exceed $1 million (FAS, 2016; 

queried February 17, 2016). These values may include fresh organically produced cherries, 

conventionally produced sweet cherries, and/or conventionally produced sour cherries.
April 15, 2016 7

Trading Partner Total Cherry Exports Value Regulated organism

Canada 2015: $109 million Yes

South Korea 2015: $108 million Yes

China 2015: $65 million 

Hong Kong 2015: $43 million 

Japan 2015: $32 million Yes

Taiwan 2015: $31 million Yes

Australia 2015: $22 million 

Mexico 2015: $6.3 million 

Thailand 2015: $5.5 million Yes

Singapore 2015: $3.3 million 

United Kingdom 2015: $2.8 million 

Vietnam 2015: $2.7 million 

Netherlands 2015: $2.3 million R. cerasi is present in country

Malaysia 2015: $1.5 million 

Norway 2015: $1.3 million R. cerasi is present in country

A search of the Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking System (APHIS, 2016b) indicates that 

several of the countries to which the United States exports fresh cherry fruit already require a systems 

approach and phytosanitary declaration of freedom from the Rhagoletis species already present here (e.g., 

South Korea, Taiwan). However, based on the presence of R. indifferens and R. cingulata in cherry 

production areas in the United States, the introduction of R. cerasi is not likely to significantly affect 

international export of cherry fruit unless it is found in the United States prior to being confirmed in 

Canada. Rhagoletis indifferens and R. cingulata are both already present in both the United States and 

Canada. The establishment of R. cerasi in the United States without being present in Canada may 

significantly affect the export of fresh fruit. 

Domestic movement of cherry fruit could be impacted, based on the presence of R. indifferens and R. 

cingulata (Yee et al., 2013). Florida regulates all host fruit or articles that may be infested by Rhagoletis

spp. (FDACS, 2016). The California Department of Food and Agriculture also maintains exterior and 

interior quarantines for cherry fruit flies in the United States (CDFA, 2016). The introduction of R. cerasi, 

which could result in a need for additional cherry fruit fly control measures in the United States, may 

initiate additional state quarantines in attempt to reduce the spread.

Potential environmental impacts: Similarly to R. cingulata, ecological impacts associated with 

establishment of R. cerasi in the United States are considered unlikely. The viability of the seed within the 

fruit is not affected by infestation, and the fruit remains suitable for consumption by animals (EFSA, 2014).

Trees grown for ornamental purposes are also unlikely to be significantly affected, as they are not grown 

for fruit. However, the addition of specific control measures for R. cerasi may impact the environment. 

Control measures are necessary to achieve marketable fruit with very little to no larval infestation rates, and 

timing with annual emergence of the adults is critical in obtaining sufficient control (Daniel and Grunder, 

2012). Given that R. cerasi emerges two weeks earlier than R. cingulata, there may therefore be additional 

control needs, including chemical sprays on the fruit. Control measures used in organic cherry production 

are less likely to affect the environment.

Uncertainty: It is uncertain whether control measures already in place for R. indifferens and R. cingulata

in both conventional and organic cherry production would also be effective if R. cerasi were introduced 

into the United States. Additional measures and adjustment to the timing of the measures would likely need 

to be implemented. It is uncertain whether the trapping and monitoring methods already in place for 

Rhagoletis species in the United States would be as effective as those methods used in Europe for R. cerasi.

If R. cerasi were to become established in the United States, hybridization with the American cherry fruit 
April 15, 2016 8

fly (R. cingulata) could occur, thereby potentially facilitating new pest dynamics, including host 

preferences, flight periods, and life cycle (Johannesen et al., 2013). Lonicera spp. growing on forest edges 

in close proximity to cherry orchards can support large populations of R. cerasi and could serve as a 

potential reservoir for reinfestations of cherry orchards after a successful eradication initiative (Boller and 

Bush, 1974), though there is no research confirming the R. cerasi populations on Lonicera switch to Prunus

host plants.

The level of interspecific competition that may occur should R. cerasi be introduced into the native ranges 

of R. cingulata and R. indifferens in North America is unclear. The earlier oviposition and subsequent 

pheromone deterrent fruit marking of R. cerasi over R. cingulata suggests that R. cerasi may be able to

infest more fruit and develop larger populations more quickly than R. cingulata (Egartner et al., 2010); 

however, earlier studies indicated that different species did not recognize other marking pheromones 

(Prokopy et al., 1976). Furthermore, R. cingulata produces more eggs and has a faster larval development 

period than R. cerasi, which would likely minimize advantages of R. cerasi over R. cingulata (Egartner et 

al., 2010). Rhagoletis cingulata and R. indifferens also emerge at different times than R. cerasi, potentially 

complicating control measures and the need for additional sprays (Egartner et al., 2010). Rhagoletis cerasi

requires 430 degree days above 5 °C (Daniel and Grunder, 2012), while R. cingulata requires 950 degree

days above 4.4 °C and R. indifferens requires 462 degree days above 5 °C (Egartner et al., 2010). Timing of 

control measures for R. indifferens and R. cerasi may therefore be similar. Egartner et al. (2010) noted that 

European flight period of R. cingulata occurred mid-June to mid-August while the American flight period 

of R. indifferens occurred mid-May through July. 

References:

APHIS. 2016a. Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) Database. United States Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/index.cfm?ACTION=pubHome. (Archived at PERAL).

APHIS. 2016b. Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking System (PCIT) United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). (Archived at 

PERAL).

Arthofer, W., M. Riegler, D. Schneider, M. Krammer, W. J. Miller, and C. Stauffer. 2009. Hidden 

Wolbachia diversity in field populations of the European cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi 

(Diptera, Tephritidae). Molecular Ecology 18(18):3816-3830.

Baker, C. R. B., and G. W. Miller. 1978. The effect of temperature on the post-diapause development of 

four geographical populations of the European cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cerasi). Entomologia 

Experimentalis et Applicata 23:1-13.

Böckmann, E., K. Köppler, E. Hummel, and H. Vogt. 2013. Bait spray for control of European cherry fruit 

fly: an appraisal based on semi-field and field studies. Pest Manag Sci:1-8.

Boller, E., B. Katsoyannos, and C. Hippe. 1998. Host races of Rhagoletis cerasi L. (Dipt., Tephritidae): 

Effect of prior adult experience on oviposition site preference. Journal of Applied Entomology 

122(1‐5):231-237.

Boller, E. F., and G. L. Bush. 1974. Evidence for genetic variation in populations of the European cherry 

fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on physiological parameters and 

hybridization experiments. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 17(2):279-293.

Boller, E. F., and R. J. Prokopy. 1976. Bionomics and management of Rhagoletis. Annual Review of 

Entomology 21:223-246.

Boller, E. F., K. Russ, V. Vallo, and G. L. Bush. 1976. Incompatible races of European cherry fruit fly, 

Rhagoletis cerasi (Diptera: Tephritidae), their origin and potential use in biological control. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 20:237-247.

Brand, G., H. Höhn, S. Kuske, and J. Samietz. 2013. Management of European cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis 

cerasi) with exclusion netting: first results [abstract]. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 91:401-404.

CABI. 2016. Crop Protection Compendium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). 

http://www.cabi.org/cpc/. (Archived at PERAL).
April 15, 2016 9

CABI, and EPPO. 2004. Rhagoletis fausta. CAB International (CABI), European and Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization (EPPO). 4 pp.

CAPS. 2012. Stone Fruit Commodity-based Survey Guideline. USDA-APHIS-PPQ Center for Plant Health 

Science and Technology, Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS). 63 pp.

Caruso, S., and M. C. Cera. 2004. Control strategies for the Cherry Fruit Fly (Rhagoletis cerasi) in organic 

farming. Integrated plant protection in stone fruit; IOBC/wprs Bulletin 27(5):99-104.

CDFA. 2016. California Plant Quarantine Manual. California Department of Agriculture (CDFA). 

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PE/interiorexclusion/pqm.html. (Archived at PERAL).

CDMS. 2016. CDMS Label Search. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (CDMS). 

http://premier.cdms.net/webapls/. (Archived at PERAL).

CFIA. 2016. Appendix 1: Summary of Plant Health Import Requirements for Temperate Fresh Fruit 

Approved for Entry into Canada. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/directives/horticulture/d-95-

08/appendix-1/eng/1322423173660/1322423886642. (Archived at PERAL).

Daniel, C., and B. Baker. 2013. Dispersal of Rhagoletis cerasi in Commercial Cherry Orchards: Efficacy of 

Soil Covering Nets for Cherry Fruit Fly Control. Insects 4:168-176.

Daniel, C., and J. Grunder. 2012. Integrated management of European cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi 

(L.): Situation in Switzerland and Europe. Insects 3:956-988.

Daniel, C., S. Mathis, and G. Feichtinger. 2014. A New Visual Trap for Rhagoletis cerasi (L.) (Diptera: 

Tephritidae). Insects 5:564-576.

Daniel, C., and E. Wyss. 2010. Field applications of Beauveria bassiana to control the European cherry 

fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi. Journal of Applied Entomology 134:675-681.

EFSA. 2014. Scientific Opinion on the pest categorisation of Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew). European Food 

Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy 12(10):1-27.

Egartner, A., N. Zeisner, H. Hausdorf, and S. Blümel. 2010. First record of Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew) 

(Dipt., Tephritidae) in Austria. EPPO Bulletin 40:158-162.FAO, and IAEA. 2013. Trapping 

manual for area-wide fruit fly programmes. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria. 47 pp.

FAS. 2016. U. S. Trade Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service 

(FAS). http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. (Archived at PERAL).

FDACS. 2016. Summary of Florida Plant Import Regulations. Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS). http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/PlantIndustry/Business-Services/Summary-of-Plant-Regulations. (Archived at PERAL).

Fowler, G., Y. Takeuchi, A. Joseph, and C. B. Landry. 2016. Rhagoletis cerasi risk map. Personal 

communication to C. B. Landry on February 25, 2016, from Glenn Fowler (PPQ-PERAL Risk 

Analyst) and Yu Takeuchi (North Carolina State University).

Grassi, A., D. Profaizer, R. Maines, and G. Visintainer. 2010. An experience of cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis 

cerasi control with nets in Trentino, Italy. Ecofruit. 14th International Conference on Organic 

Fruit-Growing. Proceedings for the conference, Hohenheim, Germany, 22-24 February 2010:259-

263.

Höhn, H., R. Walder, I. Mühlenz, J. Samietz, and C. Linder. 2012. Alternatives au diméthoate pour lutter 

contre la mouche de la cerise [English abstract: Control of the cherry fruit fly: alternatives to 

dimethoate]. Revue Suisse de Viticulture, Arboriculture et Horticulture 44(3):152-158.

Jaastad, G. 1994. First registration of the cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi (L.) in western Norway; 

distribution, size and origin of the population [abstract]. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural 

Sciences 8(3/4):203-214.

Jaastad, G. 1998. Male mating success and body size in the European cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi L. 

(Dipt., Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 122(1-5):121-124.

Johannesen, J., N. Keyghobadi, H. Schuler, C. Stauffer, and H. Vogt. 2013. Invasion genetics of American 

cherry fruit fly in Europe and signals of hybridization with the European cherry fruit fly. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata:1-12.

Kovanci, O. B., and B. Kovanci. 2006a. Effect of altitude on seasonal flight activity of Rhagoletis cerasi 

flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 96:345-351.
April 15, 2016 10

Kovanci, O. B., and B. Kovanci. 2006b. Reduced-risk management of Rhagoletis cerasi flies (host race 

Prunus) in combination with a preliminary phenological model. Journal of Insect Science 6(34):1-

10.

Lampe, I., F. Burghause, and H.-J. Krauthausen. 2005. Introduction and Distribution of the American 

Eastern Cherry Fruit Fly, Rhagoletis cingulata, in the Rhine Valley, Germany. Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on Introduction and Spread of Invasive Species. Humboldt University, 

Berlin (DE). 6 pp.

NAPIS. 2016. National Agriculture Pest Information System (NAPIS). Center for Environmental & 

Regulatory Information Systems. http://napis.ceris.purdue.edu/htbin/homepage.com. (Archived at 

PERAL).

NASS. 2016. QuickStat: Sweet and tart cherry production data. Extracted February 17, 2016. USDA 

National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS).

Olszak, R. W., and A. Maciesiak. 2004. Problem of cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cerasi) in Poland - flight 

dynamics and control with some insecticides. Integrated plant protection in stone fruit; IOBC/wprs 

Bulletin 27(5):91-96.

PERAL. 2016. Predictive Pest Impact Assessment (PPIA): Rhagoletis cerasi Linnaeus, European cherry 

fruit fly. USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 

(PERAL). 14 pp.

PestID. 2016. Pest Identification Database (PestID). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 

https://aqas.aphis.usda.gov/aqas/HomePageInit.do. (Archived at PERAL).

PExD. 2016. Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). United States Department of Agriculture, 

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System. 

https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ViewPExD.jsp. (Archived at PERAL).

Podleckis, E. 2016. RE: Inquiry: Cherry plants for planting. Personal communication to C. B. Landry on 

February 16, 2016, from Ed Podleckis (USDA-APHIS-PPQ-Policy & Management, Plant Health 

Programs, Senior risk manager).

PPQ. 2016. Plants for Planting Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ).

Prokopy, R. J., W. H. Reissig, and V. Moericke. 1976. Marking pheromones deterring repeated oviposition 

in Rhagoletis flies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 20(2):170-178.

Riegler, M., and C. Stauffer. 2002. Wolbachia infections and superinfections in cytoplasmically 

incompatible populations of the European cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi (Diptera, Tephritidae). 

Molecular Ecology 11:2425-2434.

Russ, K., E. F. Boller, V. Vallo, A. Haisch, and S. Sezer. 1973. Development and application of visual traps 

for monitoring and control of populations of Rhagoletis cerasi L. Entomophaga 18(1):103-116.

Schuler, H., K. Köppler, S. Daxböck‐Horvath, B. Rasool, S. Krumböck, D. Schwarz, T. S. Hoffmeister, B. 

C. Schlick‐Steiner, F. M. Steiner, and A. Telschow. 2016. The hitchhiker's guide to Europe: The 

infection dynamics of an ongoing Wolbachia invasion and mitochondrial selective sweep in 

Rhagoletis cerasi. Molecular Ecology:1-40.

Schwarz, D., B. A. McPheron, G. B. Hartl, E. F. Boller, and T. S. Hoffmeister. 2003. A second case of 

genetic host races in Rhagoletis? A population genetic comparison of sympatric host populations 

in the European cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 

108(1):11-17.

Smith, T. J., and E. Smith, T. J., and E. Kupferman. 2002. Crop Profile for Sweet Cherries in Washington. 

Washington State University, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. 26 pp.. 2002. Crop 

Profile for Sweet Cherries in Washington. Washington State University, College of Agriculture 

and Home Economics. 26 pp.

Stalažs, A. 2012. Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in Latvia. RPD Abstracts 1:10.

Stamenković, S., P. Perić, and D. Milošević. 2012. Rhagoletis cerasi Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) –

Biological Characteristics, Harmfulness and Control. Pestic. Phytomed. (Belgrade) 27(4):269-281.
April 15, 2016 11

Ughini, V., G. L. Malvicini, F. Pisaroni, C. Plessi, and S. Caruso. 2010. Trials on the Use of Nets in the 

Vignola Cherry District against Cherry Fruit Fly (Rhagoletis cerasi L.). Acta Horticulturae 

873:337-342.

UNECE. 2010. UNECE Standard FFV-13 concerning the marketing and commercial quality control of 

cherries. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), New York and Geneva. 6 

pp.

White, I. M., and M. M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and 

bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 601 pp.

Yee, W. L., V. Hernández-Ortiz, J. Rull, and B. J. Sinclair. 2013. ST 04: Status of Rhagoletis (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) Pests in the NAPPO Countries. 37 pp.

Authors: Cynthia Landry and Kathryn Mordecai
April 15, 2016 12

Appendix. Value of fresh cherry exports from the United States worldwide (FAS, 2016; queried February 

17, 2016). These values may include fresh organically produced cherries, conventionally produced sweet 

cherries, and/or conventionally produced sour cherries.

Trading Partner Total Cherry Exports Value* Regulated organism?**

Canada 2015: $109 million Yes

South Korea 2015: $108 million Yes

China 2015: $65 million 

Hong Kong 2015: $43 million 

Japan 2015: $32 million Yes

Taiwan 2015: $31 million Yes

Australia 2015: $22 million 

Mexico 2015: $6.3 million 

Thailand 2015: $5.5 million Yes

Singapore 2015: $3.3 million 

United Kingdom 2015: $2.8 million 

Vietnam 2015: $2.7 million 

Netherlands 2015: $2.3 million R. cerasi is present in country

Malaysia 2015: $1.5 million 

Norway 2015: $1.3 million R. cerasi is present in country

France 2015: $483,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Philippines 2015: $472,000 

Germany 2015: $440,000 R. cerasi is present in country

United Arab Emirates 2015: $244,000 

Indonesia 2015: $205,000 Yes

New Zealand 2015: $166,000 

Bahamas 2015: $106,000 

Trinidad and Tobago 2015: $89,000

Denmark 2015: $87,000 R. cerasi is present in country

India 2015: $80,000 Yes

Cambodia 2015: $69,000

Colombia 2015: $45,000

Spain 2015: $43,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Netherlands Antilles 2015: $42,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Panama 2015: $32,000

Aruba 2015: $28,000

Cayman Islands 2015: $26,000

Honduras 2015: $25,000 Yes

Burma 2015: $18,000

Barbados 2015: $17,000

Curacao 2015: $5,000

Dominican Republic 2015: $10,000

Botswana 2015: $9,000

Bermuda 2015: $6,000

Guatemala 2015: $5,000

Iceland 2015: $5,000

Costa Rica 2015: $5,000

Ecuador 2015: $5,000

Saudi Arabia 2015: $4,000

Guyana 2015: $4,000

Belgium 2015: $0 / 2014: $262,000 R. cerasi is present in country
April 15, 2016 13

Bahrain 2015: $0 / 2014: $7,000

Belgium-Luxembourg 2015: $0 / 2014: $262,000

Bangladesh 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

Brazil 2015: $0 / 2014: $387,000

Chile 2015: $0 / 2014: $49,000

Italy 2015: $0 / 2014: $10,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Jamaica 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

Kuwait 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

Malawi 2015: $0 / 2014: $3,000

Qatar 2015: $0 / 2014: $45,000

Russia 2015: $0 / 2014: $14,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Senegal 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

Sweden 2015: $0 / 2014: $41,000 R. cerasi is present in country

Venezuela 2015: $0 / 2014: $14,000

Wallis and Futuna 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

French Pacific Islands 2015: $0 / 2014: $0

*Value of fresh fruit exported from the United States to the corresponding trading partner

**Based on information available in the Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD)