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 47.3, difficulty 37.5.
Tracked keywords
109
0 ranked • 109 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
47.3
Top keyword: create
Avg difficulty
37.5
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 84.7
create
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,155
- 87.6
like
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 63.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,767
- 83.9
features
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,060
- 67.2
strategy
Opportunity: 58.0 • Difficulty: 46.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 197
- 70.9
health
Opportunity: 58.0 • Difficulty: 51.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 307
Unranked opportunities
create
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.6 • Competitors: 1,155
like
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 63.2 • Competitors: 1,767
features
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.4 • Competitors: 1,060
strategy
Opportunity: 58.0 • Difficulty: 46.2 • Competitors: 197
health
Opportunity: 58.0 • Difficulty: 51.3 • Competitors: 307
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 7,508 • Major competitors: 1,767
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 63.2
create
Total apps: 5,537 • Major competitors: 1,155
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.6
features
Total apps: 5,134 • Major competitors: 1,060
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.4
using
Total apps: 4,473 • Major competitors: 924
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 61.4
mobile
Total apps: 3,947 • Major competitors: 846
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.2
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | 58 | 100 | 46 | 67 937 competing apps Median installs: 252,800 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 197 major competitor apps |
| health | 58 | 100 | 51 | 71 1,361 competing apps Median installs: 248,675 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 307 major competitor apps |
| single | 58 | 100 | 50 | 72 1,511 competing apps Median installs: 234,575 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 294 major competitor apps |
| version | 58 | 100 | 46 | 68 1,006 competing apps Median installs: 238,775 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 182 major competitor apps |
| sheet | 57 | 100 | 28 | 40 57 competing apps Median installs: 201,900 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 14 major competitor apps |
| images | 58 | 100 | 51 | 69 1,097 competing apps Median installs: 227,650 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 197 major competitor apps |
| range | 58 | 100 | 48 | 71 1,314 competing apps Median installs: 239,262 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 261 major competitor apps |
| curated | 20 | 100 | 52 | 62 576 competing apps Median installs: 309,950 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 159 major competitor apps |
| digital | 58 | 100 | 52 | 72 1,579 competing apps Median installs: 256,800 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 339 major competitor apps |
| information | 58 | 100 | 57 | 78 2,704 competing apps Median installs: 252,888 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 572 major competitor apps |
| used | 58 | 100 | 53 | 72 1,494 competing apps Median installs: 237,800 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 279 major competitor apps |
| manage | 58 | 100 | 59 | 81 3,807 competing apps Median installs: 248,925 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 774 major competitor apps |
| created | 58 | 100 | 47 | 67 953 competing apps Median installs: 213,175 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 153 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 58 | 100 | 47 | 66 863 competing apps Median installs: 274,975 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 193 major competitor apps |
| using | 58 | 100 | 61 | 83 4,473 competing apps Median installs: 247,200 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 924 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 58 | 100 | 60 | 81 3,947 competing apps Median installs: 251,675 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 846 major competitor apps |
| key | 58 | 100 | 51 | 69 1,089 competing apps Median installs: 257,575 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 226 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 56 | 100 | 23 | 35 36 competing apps Median installs: 178,900 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 3 major competitor apps |
| create | 59 | 100 | 61 | 85 5,537 competing apps Median installs: 251,325 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,155 major competitor apps |
| many | 58 | 100 | 55 | 81 3,804 competing apps Median installs: 252,775 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 758 major competitor apps |
| provides | 58 | 100 | 49 | 74 1,846 competing apps Median installs: 221,075 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 308 major competitor apps |
| tools | 58 | 100 | 53 | 74 1,836 competing apps Median installs: 246,312 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 366 major competitor apps |
| quality | 58 | 100 | 53 | 74 1,906 competing apps Median installs: 248,725 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 383 major competitor apps |
| would like | 57 | 100 | 39 | 56 307 competing apps Median installs: 322,575 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 71 major competitor apps |
| easily | 58 | 100 | 61 | 80 3,352 competing apps Median installs: 262,062 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 764 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