Lepidopteran Families
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 109 keywords for Lepidopteran Families in Apple App Store
Lepidopteran Families tracks 109 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 109 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 69.9, difficulty 37.1.
Tracked keywords
109
0 ranked • 109 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
69.9
Top keyword: strategy
Avg difficulty
37.1
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 68.5
strategy
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 208
- 66.4
assist
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 46
- 64.7
chosen
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 62
- 65.1
taken
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 30
- 67.2
high quality
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 76
Unranked opportunities
strategy
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Competitors: 208
assist
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.9 • Competitors: 46
chosen
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.1 • Competitors: 62
taken
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Competitors: 30
high quality
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Competitors: 76
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 140,190 • Major competitors: 1,775
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.3
mobile
Total apps: 117,282 • Major competitors: 771
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.3
using
Total apps: 116,658 • Major competitors: 765
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.3
create
Total apps: 115,763 • Major competitors: 1,191
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.4
features
Total apps: 113,448 • Major competitors: 1,070
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.3
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | 73 | 100 | 42 | 68 12,170 competing apps Median installs: 125 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 208 major competitor apps |
| health | 69 | 100 | 46 | 77 38,128 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 293 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 46 | 76 36,275 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 306 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 45 | 75 29,193 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 180 major competitor apps |
| sheet | 71 | 100 | 34 | 56 2,301 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 15 major competitor apps |
| images | 70 | 100 | 45 | 75 28,790 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 167 major competitor apps |
| range | 69 | 100 | 46 | 77 37,302 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 273 major competitor apps |
| curated | 72 | 100 | 42 | 69 12,887 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.4 | — | — | 125 major competitor apps |
| digital | 69 | 100 | 47 | 78 45,148 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 332 major competitor apps |
| information | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 110,448 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 537 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 48 | 79 51,134 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 235 major competitor apps |
| manage | 67 | 100 | 50 | 83 92,206 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 743 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 45 | 74 26,821 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 134 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 72 | 100 | 43 | 71 17,568 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 179 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 116,658 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 765 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 117,282 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 771 major competitor apps |
| key | 69 | 100 | 47 | 77 41,571 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 268 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 71 | 100 | 33 | 55 2,047 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 2 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 115,763 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,191 major competitor apps |
| many | 67 | 100 | 49 | 82 77,810 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 674 major competitor apps |
| provides | 67 | 100 | 49 | 82 73,576 competing apps Median installs: 25 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 257 major competitor apps |
| tools | 69 | 100 | 46 | 77 37,575 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 312 major competitor apps |
| quality | 68 | 100 | 48 | 79 51,848 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 377 major competitor apps |
| would like | 72 | 100 | 38 | 63 5,744 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 62 major competitor apps |
| easily | 67 | 100 | 50 | 83 87,008 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 617 major competitor apps |
App Description
The range of families included in the key encompasses those exotic species identified by Plant Health Australia (2012), Department of Agriculture (Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy) (2013) and the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy Diagnostic Network (2013). The key has been adapted from Nielsen et al. (1991), Kristensen (1999) and Holloway et al. (1987). Diagnoses were evaluated using data from Bradley (1986), Common (1990), Holloway (2011), Kyrki (1984), Landry (2003), Miller (1991), Nielsen et al. (1996), Solis (2007) and Zborowski et al. (2007).
Diagnostic images were taken by S. Anderson and Y. Luo, and were prepared from curated specimens, using LEICA DC300 digital camera and Leica DC Twain® version 5.1.10 software. Numerous photographs of each specimen were taken at differing focal planes and these were montaged using Automontage Essentials® 5.020096 ES to produce a single image. Images were taken at 2592 x 1944 resolution and saved in TIFF format.
The authors would like to thank Ted Edwards for his extensive lepidopteran expertise, Matt Taylor, James Walker, John Nielsen, Len Willan, David Britton, Thomas Wallenius, You Ning Su, and Luke Halling.
How to cite this key
Anderson SJ, Luo YY & Bellis GA (2017). Lepidopteran Families of Biosecurity Concern. Interactive Lucid Key. Northern Australian Quarantine Strategy, Department of Agriculture
Software used
Lucid v3.6 was used to construct and manage the identification key.
Fact Sheet Fusion v2 was used to manage the images and data and create fact sheets for both the web and mobile application.
The app was created using the Lucid Mobile Platform.
For more information on these tools please visit: http://www.lucidcentral.org