Rhagoletis cingulata (cherry fruit fly)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew)
Preferred Common Name
- cherry fruit fly
Other Scientific Names
- Trypeta (Rhagoletis) cingulata Loew
- Trypeta cingulata Loew
International Common Names
- French: mouche des cerises; trypete des cerises
Local Common Names
- : cherry maggot; eastern cherry fruit fly; whitebanded cherry fruit fly
- RHAGCI (Rhagoletis cingulata)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
R. cingulata (listed on EPPO A2 list) is a severe pest of cherries. It is closely connected to its host plants Prunus avium, P. cerasi, P. serotina, P. mahaleb and P. emarginata. Prunus mahaleb is native in warm locations of Southern and Central Europe. It is used as rootstock for tart cherries and as ornamental plant. In Germany R. cingulata appears 3-4 weeks later than the native species R. cerasi, and due to this attacks late cherry varieties, mainly tart cherries, e.g. the economic important variety “Schattenmorellen”. This has been proven by fruit samples, from which pupae were obtained and in the following year R. cingulata adults emerged (species confirmed by Dr. Allen Norrbom, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA). Infestation levels in tart cherries amounted to more than 20%.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Tephritidae
- Genus: Rhagoletis
- Species: Rhagoletis cingulata
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Prior to the work of Bush (1966)R. cingulata and R. indifferens were generally considered as a single species.
DescriptionTop of page
Specimens should be carefully examined for the wing pattern.
Diagnostic features of the genus are as follows (characters extracted from key to North American genera of Tephritidae by Foote et al., 1993): Head with two pairs orbital setae; posterior pair reclinate. Gena with only short anterior setae. First flagellomere (third antennal segment) at least slightly pointed at the apex. Thorax with dorsocentral setae closer to level of anterior supra-alar setae than transverse suture. Scutellum not swollen or shiny. Wing with cells bm and bcu of similar depth; bcu with a short acute extension. Crossvein R-M near middle of cell dm.
This species may be identified using the Diptera key in the Crop Protection Compendium taxonomic identification aid. For full details of its separation from other North American species, see Foote et al. (1993).
The main features of the R. cingulata species complex (which also includes R. indifferens) are as follows: thorax and abdomen predominantly black. Scutellum base black. Apical band of wing forked, or upper arm of fork separated by clear area, leaving isolated dark spot at wing-tip.
In general, R. cingulata and R. indifferens are most easily separated by their location, with R. cingulata being eastern North American and R. indifferens being western North American, but there is a slight overlap in the distributions (see Distribution Section). In general, R. cingulata differs from R. indifferens as follows: R. cingulata has fore coxa yellow, anterior apical crossband on wing often reduced to an isolated spot (the stipple in the drawing shows possible joined condition); R. indifferens has fore coxa shaded black on posterior surface, anterior apical crossband rarely reduced to an isolated spot. See also Carroll et al. (2002).
Diagnosis of genus by Elson-Harris (White and Elson-Harris, 1994): Antennal sensory organ with a short basal segment and cone-shaped distal segment; maxillary sensory organ flat, with well defined sensilla surrounded by small cuticular folds; stomal sensory organ rounded, with a peg-like sensilla; large, preoral teeth near base of stomal sensory organ; no preoral lobes; oral ridges in 5-13 short, unserrated rows; no accessory plates. Stout spinules forming discontinuous rows on almost all segments. Anterior spiracles with 7-35 stout tubules. Posterior spiracular slits 3-8 times as long as broad, with 3-16 short, branched spiracular hairs. Anal lobes large, protuberant with well defined tubercles and sensilla.
An updated description of the larva of this species can be found in Carroll et al. (2004). Any Rhagoletis larvae found in cherry and having the following feature is likely to be this species: at least 21 tubules in each anterior spiracle. See the key to larvae in White and Elson-Harris (1994), which used a combination of host and fragmentary morphological data.
DistributionTop of page
R. cingulata is an eastern North American species. Western records of this species were mostly based on misidentifications of R. indifferens. However, there is a small overlap as R. cingulata is known from Arizona, and R. indifferens is found to its east in New Mexico (see map in Foote et al., 1993).
Data from Harris (1989) and Foote et al. (1993) were extracted from distribution maps which were in some cases difficult to interpret. The following records quoted by CIE (1990), as derived from Harris (1989), appear to have been based on misinterpretations of Harris' map and are not accepted here: USA (Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont) and Canada (Nova Scotia). A record for Nebraska (CIE, 1990) also could not be confirmed from a reliable source.
A record for Nova Scotia published in previous versions of the Compendium was erroneous. This species has never been reported from Nova Scotia (CFIA, personal communication, 2015).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Canada||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Manitoba||Absent, invalid record||Bush, 1966; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-New Brunswick||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Absent, unreliable record||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Nova Scotia||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Ontario||Present||Native||Bush, 1966; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Prince Edward Island||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Quebec||Present||Native||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Saskatchewan||Present||Native||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Mexico||Restricted distribution||Foote, 1981; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|USA||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Alabama||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Arizona||Restricted distribution||Native||Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Arkansas||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Connecticut||Present, few occurrences||Native||Harris, 1989; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Delaware||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-District of Columbia||Present, few occurrences||Native||Harris, 1989; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Florida||Restricted distribution||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Georgia||Present||Native||Bush, 1966; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Illinois||Present, few occurrences||Native||Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Indiana||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Iowa||Restricted distribution||Native||Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Louisiana||Present, few occurrences||Native||Harris, 1989; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Maine||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Maryland||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Massachusetts||Present, few occurrences||Native||Harris, 1989; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Michigan||Widespread||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Mississippi||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Nebraska||Absent, reported but not confirmed||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-New Hampshire||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-New Jersey||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-New Mexico||Present||Native||EPPO, 2014|
|-New York||Widespread||Native||Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-North Carolina||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Ohio||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Pennsylvania||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-South Carolina||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Tennessee||Present, few occurrences||Native||Bush, 1966; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Texas||Present, few occurrences||Native||Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Vermont||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Virginia||Present, few occurrences||Native||Harris, 1989; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-West Virginia||Absent, reported but not confirmed||Harris, 1989; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Wisconsin||Present, few occurrences||Native||Prokopy, 1977; Foote et al., 1993; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Austria||Present, few occurrences||Egartner et al., 2010; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Belgium||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Croatia||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Czech Republic||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|France||Transient: actionable, under eradication||EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Germany||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1999||Invasive||Merz & Niehaus, 2001; Lampe et al., 2005; Vogt et al., 2007; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015||Species has been detected in nearly all cherry-growing regions of Germany.|
|Hungary||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||2006||Invasive||EPPO, 2007a; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015||Detected in sour cherry orchards.|
|Italy||Absent, reported but not confirmed||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Netherlands||Restricted distribution||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Slovenia||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||2007||Invasive||EPPO, 2007b; Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food, MAFF; IPPC, 2007; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015||Eastern part of Slovenia, sour cherry orchards.|
|Switzerland||Restricted distribution||Introduced||Boller and Mani, 1994; Boller, 2000; Daniel and Wyss, 2007; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|UK||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|New Zealand||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
In Germany it is not known when R. cingulata was introduced. It may be connected with the introduction of its native host Prunus serotina in Europe in the early seventeenth century.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
R. cingulata is an important quarantine pest for temperate regions. For example, the EPPO A2 list includes R. cingulata.
HabitatTop of page Areas with suitable hosts and climate.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Natural forests||Present, no further details||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Fruiting stage
SymptomsTop of page
Attacked fruit will be pitted by oviposition punctures, around which some discoloration usually occurs. Infested fruits appear normal until the maggot is nearly full-grown, at which time sunken spots appear. Maggots and their frass inside the cherry render the fruit unsalable. Infested fruits are more susceptible to fungi. The third larval instar forms one to three holes (about 1 mm in diameter) through the skin of the cherry, before it leaves it for pupation in the soil (Frick et al., 1954).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / discoloration|
|Fruit / extensive mould|
|Fruit / gummosis|
|Fruit / internal feeding|
|Fruit / lesions: black or brown|
|Fruit / lesions: scab or pitting|
|Fruit / obvious exit hole|
|Fruit / odour|
|Fruit / ooze|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Most Rhagoletis species have a similar biology, as detailed by Christenson and Foote (1960) and by Frick et al. (1954) for R. cinguluta: eggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit and hatch after 3-7 days; the larvae usually feed for 2-5 weeks; pupariation is in the soil under the host plant and this is the normal overwintering stage; adults may live for up to 40 days under field conditions. In Pennsylvania, adults emerge in June (Jubb and Cox, 1974). The flight period varies in dependence with the habitat (Teixeira et al., 2007).
ClimateTop of page
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Preferred||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Adult flight and the transport of infected fruits are the major means of movement and dispersal to previously uninfected areas. In general, Rhagoletis species are not known to fly more than a short distance. In international trade, the major means of dispersal to previously uninfested areas is the transport of fruits containing live larvae. There is also a risk from the transport of puparia in soil or packaging with plants which have already fruited.
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Forestry||Via its host plant P. serotina||Yes||Yes|
|Garden waste disposal||Infested fruits||Yes|
|Hedges and windbreaks||Can serve as a reservoir from which dispersal can occur||Yes|
|Hitchhiker||Infested fruits, pupae in transportation units||Yes||Yes|
|Horticulture||Infested fruits, can serve as a reservoir from which dispersal can occur||Yes||Yes|
|Ornamental purposes||Host plants as ornamentals||Yes|
|People sharing resources||Infested fruits, pupae in transportation units||Yes|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||Fruit in case or handbag.||Yes|
|Consumables||Larvae in fruits might be overlooked when infestation level is low||Yes||Yes|
|Containers and packaging - non-wood||Larvae might be overlooked when infestation level is low||Yes||Yes|
|Containers and packaging - wood||Of fruit cargo.||Yes|
|Debris and waste associated with human activities||Infested fruits||Yes|
|Land vehicles||Lorries, aeroplanes and perhaps ships, with fruit cargo.||Yes|
|Fruit in post.||Yes|
|Soil, sand and gravel||Risk of puparia in soil.||Yes|
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||eggs; larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||pupae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Timber type||Used as packing|
|Non-wood||Plastic transport boxes for fruit||Yes|
Impact SummaryTop of page
ImpactTop of page
R. cingulata is an important pest of cherries in eastern North America. In Europe, where it is found in cherry growing regions, it attacks late cherry varities, often tart cherries.
Economic ImpactTop of page
R. cingulata is a severe pest of cherries. In Europe, due to its 3 to 4 week later appearance compared to the European species R. cerasi, late cherry varieties are attacked. To date, these are mainly tart cherries, e.g. the economically important variety “Schattenmorellen”. This is of importance as the native species (R. cerasi) is not an important pest of these sour cherries. If the planting of other late cherry varieties is increased, e.g. economic important sweet varities to prolong the cherry season, these are also in danger of being infested. In Germany, R. cingulata has been detected in nearly all cherry growing regions (Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Bavaria, Hesse, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia). Higher population densities are observed in areas with extensive cherry growing and with reservoirs such as abandoned orchards, hedges and unmanaged areas including host plants. To date infestation levels in sour cherries have reached 20 to 30% (Vogt, 2007; Vogt et al., 2007, 2010). In all regions where R. cingulata has been observed, chemical control is now recommended. The occurrence of R. cingulata has also recently been reported from further countries: Slovenia and Hungary, no further details are available as yet as monitoring has only just started.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
It is unlikely that the species has an impact on habitats or biodiversity. It only competes with the European species R. cerasi, and has a slightly alternative phenology emerging 3 to 4 weeks later. The resources used by both species are abundant.
Social ImpactTop of page
Since the occurrence of R. cingulata it has become necessary to treat sour cherry varities with insecticides. Expansions of infestations might lead to the giving up of extensive cherry growing, especially when managed as a sideline, as well as the cutting down of trees in gardens.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerant of shade
- Highly mobile locally
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Traps have been developed which capture both sexes, based on visual, or visual plus odour, attraction. They are coated in sticky material and are usually either flat-surfaced and coloured fluorescent yellow to elicit a supernormal foliage response (see Reissig, 1976), or spherical and dark-coloured to represent a fruit (see Prokopy, 1977); traps which combine both foliage and fruit attraction can also be used. The odour comes from protein hydrolysate or other substances emitting ammonia, such as ammonium acetate. See Boller and Prokopy (1976), Economopoulos (1989) and Liburd et al. (2001) for a discussion of these traps and Pelz-Stelinski et al. (2006a) for positioning of the traps. Burditt (1988) has evaluated different traps for catching R. indifferens in British Columbia, Canada.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
R. cingulata is most likely to be confused with R. indifferens (see Morphology Section). The adults of R. cingulata are also very similar to, and not always separable from, those of two species associated with Oleaceae, namely R. chionanthi and R. osmanthi (see Foote et al., 1993, for details).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Upon detection, fallen and infected fruit should be removed and destroyed. This aspect is very important, but normally rarely executed as it costs time and money.
Cherry fruit fly control has relied for many years on the use of broad-spectrum insecticides. Boller and Prokopy (1976) note already that systemic organophosphates, such as dimethoate, are highly effective against most species, killing eggs, larvae and adults. Belanger et al. (1985) discussed the use of pyrethroids, but these were only of use when pest activity was low. Use of soil insecticides to kill puparia has been considered by AliNiazee (1974) and Boller and Prokopy (1976) referred to experiments with juvenile hormone analogues applied to the soil. However, regarding ecotoxicological aspects soil applications should not be considered anymore. Advanced IPM systems have been implemented in some areas, for example, Michigan (Edson et al., 1998). Broad-spectrum insecticides are still in use (Rothwell et al., 2006), but due to the re-evaluation processes underway for pesticides in the USA, Canada and Europe these most probably will disappear. In Germany, dimethoate has no registration any more for cherry fruit fly control since 2005 and its use has only been allowed by special permit since then. Studies with newer insecticides, e.g. neonicotinids or acetamiprid (Fried, 2003; Galli, 2003), and others are ongoing. In the USA, particle film (Kaolin clay) is another option for cherry fruit fly control.
As a new and environmentally friendly measure, progress has been made with bait sprays (food bait mixed with low quantities of insecticides) containing spinosad as an insecticide (e.g. Yee and Chapmann, 2005; Pelz-Stelinski et al., 2006b; Yee and Alston, 2006; Köppler et al., 2008). Bait sprays can be applied as spot treatments on the trees. In comparison with cover sprays, the amount of insecticide used is drastically reduced with bait sprays. Constraints in their effectiveness are high population densities and rainfall, because bait sprays up to now are not rainfast. Furthermore, infestation sources, i.e. untreated host trees, should not be in the vicinity in order to avoid immigration of fertile females.
Investigations in biocontrol using entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN) have shown that maggots of Rhagoletis species are highly susceptible (Yee and Lacey, 2003; Köppler et al., 2005). However, high efficacies could not be achieved under practical conditions with one to several applications of a commercially available product based on Steinernema feltiae (application rate 250.000 to 500.000 EPN/m²) (Herz et al., 2007a,b; 2008). The reasons are manyfold: pupation occurs too quickly (when larvae enter the soil; larval dropping to the soil occurs over a long period (2-4 weeks)); survival of nematodes in the soil is short (frequent and cost intensive applications of EPN would be necessary); and soil conditions are often unfavourable (too dry and too warm, for optimum nematode survival and infectivity). Even with repeated irrigation in field investigations carried out by Herz et al. (2007a,b, 2008), efficacies were far from sufficient.
Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents have been tested against Rhagoletis species in Europe and the USA (Yee and Lacey, 2005; Daniel and Wyss, 2008; Ladurner et al., 2008). A product based on Beauveria bassiana is registered in Italy for control of the European cherry fruit fly, R. cerasi. Field experiments have resulted in significant reductions of fruit infestation, but efficacies varied (Daniel and Wyss, 2008; Ladurner et al., 2008). This may be due to varying climatic conditions, which have a high impact on myco-pesticides.
Consignments of cherries (Prunus avium, P. cerasus) and of P. salicina from countries where R. cingulata or R. indifferens occur should be inspected for symptoms of infestation and those suspected should be cut open in order to look for larvae. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) recommends that such fruits should come from an area where R. cingulata and R. indifferens do not occur, or from a place of production found free from these pests by regular inspection for 3 months before harvest. Fruits may also be treated, but specific treatment schedules have mostly not been developed for Rhagoletis species, since there is no need for them in North America. Irradiation has been successfully tested as a quarantine treatment against R. indifferens (Burditt and Hungate, 1988).
Plants of host species transported with roots from countries where R. cingulata or R. indifferens occur should be free from soil, or the soil should be treated against puparia, and should not carry fruits. Such plants may indeed be prohibited importation.
ReferencesTop of page
Boller E, 2000. [English title not available]. (Situationsbericht über die nordamerikanische Fruchtfliegenarten in der Schweiz (Diptera: Tephritidae).) Situationsbericht über die nordamerikanische Fruchtfliegenarten in der Schweiz (Diptera: Tephritidae). Wein- und Gartenbau: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Obst-, 5 pp.
Boller E; Mani E, 1994. Two North American Rhagoletis species in Europe. IOBC wprs Bull, 17(6):83.
Boller EF; Prokopy RJ, 1976. Bionomics and management of Rhagoletis. In: Smith RF, Mittler TE, Smith CN, ed. Annual review of entomology. Volume 21. Annual Reviews Inc. Palo Alto, California, USA, 223-246.
Bush GL, 1966. The taxonomy, cytology and evolution of the genus Rhagoletis in North America (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 134:431-526.
Carroll LE; White IM; Freidberg A; Norrbom AL; Dallwitz MJ; Thompson FC, 2002. Pest fruit flies of the world. Version: 15th July 2005. Pest fruit flies of the world. Version: 15th July 2005. unpaginated. http://delta-intkey.com
Christenson LD; Foote RH, 1960. Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology, 5:171-192.
Daniel C; Wyss E, 2007. [English title not available]. (Zum Auftreten der Amerikanischen Kirschfruchtfliege in der Nordwestschweiz und im Tessin.) Zum Auftreten der Amerikanischen Kirschfruchtfliege in der Nordwestschweiz und im Tessin. unpaginated. http://orgprints.org/10679
Daniel C; Wyss E, 2008. Field applications of entomopathogenic fungi against Rhagoletis cerasi. In: 13th International Conference on Cultivation Techniques and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit Growing [ed. by FOEKO]. 87-92.
Economopoulos AP, 1989. Control; use of traps based on color and/or shape. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests 3(B): 315-327. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Edson CE; Nugent JE; Thornton GE; Laubach JE; Ystaas J, 1998. Integrated sour cherry (Prunus cerasus) production in Northwest lower Michigan. Third international cherry symposium, Ullensvang, Norway and Aarslev, Denmark, 23-29 July 1997. Acta-Horticulturae. No. 468, II, 505-513.
Egartner A; Zeisner N; Hausdorf H; Blümel S, 2010. First record of Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew) (Dipt., Tephritidae) in Austria. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 40(1):158-162. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/epp
EPPO, 2006. Current situation of Rhagoletis cingulata in Germany (2006/003). Reporting Service 2006, 1. 3. http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_service.htm
EPPO, 2007. First outbreak of rhagoletis cingulata in Slovenia (2007/148). EPPO Reporting Service 2007, 8. 3. http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_service.htm
EPPO, 2007. New data on quarantine pests and pests of the EPPO Alert List (2007/107). Rhagoletis cingulata was reported for the first time in 2006 in Hungary. Reporting Service 2007, 6. 2. http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_service.htm
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Foote RH, 1981. The genus Rhagoletis Loew south of the United States (Diptera: Tephritidae). Technical Bulletin, Science and Education Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, No. 1607:iv + 75 pp.
Foote RH; Blanc FL; Norrbom AL, 1993. Handbook of the Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of America North of Mexico. Ithaca, USA: Comstock.
Fried A, 2003. [English title not available]. (Kirschfruchtfliegen-Bekämpfung Versuche 2000-2002.) Obstbau, 28(6):311-313.
Galli P, 2003. [English title not available]. (Suche nach Alternativen - Zum Stand der Kirschfruchtfliegen-Bekämpfung.) Obstbau, 28(6):307-310.
Harris EJ, 1989. Pest status; Hawaiian Islands and North America, In: Robinson AS, Hooper G, eds. Fruit Flies; their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 3(A):73-81.
Herz A; Just J; Vogt H, 2007a. Application of entomopathogenic nemotodes via microsprinkler irrigation in a cherry orchard. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 114(2):93.
Herz A; Katz P; Koeppler K; Peters A; Vogt H, 2008. Testing entomopathogenic nematodes to control the European Cherry Fruit Fly, Rhagoletis cerasi L. (Diptera, Tephritidae) under practical conditions. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection:115.
Herz A; Köppler K; Vogt H; Katz P; Peters A, 2007b. [English title not available]. (Insektenpathogene Nematoden sind keine Lösung im Kampf gegen die Kirschfruchtfliege!.) Obstbau, 32(12):636-639.
Köppler K; Kaffer T; Vogt H, 2008. Bait sprays against the European cherrry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi: status quo & perspectives. In: 13th International Conference on Cultivation Techniques and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit Growing [ed. by FOEKO]. 102-108.
Köppler K; Peters A; Vogt H, 2005. Initial results in the application of entomopathogenic nematodes against the European cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi L. (Diptera, Tephritidae). Bulletin OILB/SROP [Proceedings of the 9th European meeting of the IOBC/WPRS Working group: Insect Pathogens and Insect Parasitic Nematodes, entitled "Growing Biocontrol Markets Challenge Research and Development", Kiel, Germany, 23-29 May, 2003.], 28(3):13-18.
Ladurner E; Benuzzi M; Fiorentini F; Franceschini S, 2008. Beauveria bassiana strain ATCC 74040 (Naturalis(r), a valuable tool for the conzol of the cherry fruiot fly (Rhagoletis cearsi). In: 13th International Conference on Cultivation Techniques and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit Growing [ed. by FOEKO]. 93-97.
Lampe I; Krauthausen HJ; Burghause F, 2005. Introduction and distribution of the American eastern cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cingulata) in the Rhine Valley, Germany. In: Plant protection and plant health in Europe: introduction and spread of invasive species, held at Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, 9-11 June 2005 [ed. by Alford, D. V.\Backhaus, G. F.]. Alton, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 135-140.
Liburd OE; Stelinski LL; Gut LJ; Thornton G, 2001. Performance of various trap types for monitoring populations of cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species. Environmental Entomology, 30:82-88.
Merz B; Niehuis M, 2001. Bemerkenswerte Nachweise von Fruchtfliegen (Diptera, Tephritidae) aus Rheinland-Pfalz (Deutschland). Dipteron, 4(1):57-64.
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food (MAFF), 2007. Phytosanitary administration Republic of Slovenia, 2007. first outbreak of Rhagoletis cingulata in Slovenia. 23 July 2007. [Report letter to EPPO.]
Pelz-Stelinski KS; Gut LJ; Isaacs R, 2006a. Vertical position of traps influences captures of eastern cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist, 89(1):80-82. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe89p80.pdf
Pelz-Stelinski KS; Gut LJ; Isaacs R, 2006b. Behavioral responses of Rhagoletis cingulata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to GF-120 insecticidal bait enhanced with ammonium acetate. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99(4):1316-1320. http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/00220493/v99n4s36.pdf
Rothwell N; Gut L; Teixeira L, 2006. Cherry fruit fly ecology and management. Fruit Crop Advisory Team Alert letter, 21(9). Michigan State University, June 6, 2006. http://www.ipm.msu.edu/cat06fruit/f06-06-06.htm
Teixeira LAF; Isaacs R; Gut LJ, 2007. Habitat-specific flight period in the cCherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Environmental Entomology, 36(6):1339-1348.
USDA, 1994. Treatment manual. Frederick, USA: USDA/APHIS.
Vogt H, 2007. Short information about an invasive rhagoletis species in germany. TEAM Newsletter 4, July 2007:6-7.
Vogt H; Dahlbender W; Hensel G; Lampe I, 2007. [English title not available]. (Ein neues Problem für den Kirschanbau: die Ostamerikanische Kirschfruchtfliege Rhagoletis cingulata (Loew). Entomologentagung Innsbruck, Abstracts.) Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, Supplementum 17. 253.
Vogt H; Köppler K; Dahlbender W; Hensel G, 2010. Observations of Rhagoletis cingulata, an invasive species from North America, on cherry in Germany. IOBC wprs Bulletin, 54:273-277.
Yee WL; Alston DG, 2006. Effects of spinosad, spinosad bait, and chloronicotinyl insecticides on mortality and control of adult and larval western cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 99(5):1722-1732. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0022-0493-99.5.1722
Yee WL; Chapman PS, 2005. Effects of GF-120 fruit fly bait concentrations on attraction, feeding, mortality, and control of Rhagoletis indifferens (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 98(5):1654-1663. HTTP://www.esa.catchword.org
Yee WL; Lacey LA, 2005. Mortality of different life stages of Rhagoletis indifferens (Diptera: Tephritidae) exposed to the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Journal of Entomological Science, 40(2):167-177.
OrganizationsTop of page
Germany: Julius Kuehn Institute, Institute for Plant Protection in Fruit Crops and Viticulture Schwabenheimer Straße 101, D- 69221 Dossenheim
USA: Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA, c/o National Museum of Natural History, MRC-168 P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012
ContributorsTop of page
29/02/2008 Updated by:
Heidrun Vogt, Julius Kuehn Institute, Institute for Plant Protection in Fruit Crops and Viticulture, Schwabenheimer Str. 101, D-69221 Dossenheim, Germany
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/