Lepidopteran Families
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 111 keywords for Lepidopteran Families in Apple App Store
Lepidopteran Families tracks 111 keywords (2 keywords rank; 109 need traction). Key metrics: 0% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.0, difficulty 38.5, best rank 57.
Tracked keywords
111
2 ranked • 109 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
0%
Best rank 57 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.0
Top keyword: strategy
Avg difficulty
38.5
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 68.6
strategy
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 361
- 68.1
curated
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 210
- 62.4
would like
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 129
- 66.6
assist
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 103
- 64.1
chosen
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 145
Unranked opportunities
strategy
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Competitors: 361
curated
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.1 • Competitors: 210
would like
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.0 • Competitors: 129
assist
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.7 • Competitors: 103
chosen
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.4 • Competitors: 145
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 153,385 • Major competitors: 3,284
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.4
create
Total apps: 130,850 • Major competitors: 2,321
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
mobile
Total apps: 130,035 • Major competitors: 1,613
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.2
features
Total apps: 126,027 • Major competitors: 2,126
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.9
information
Total apps: 121,649 • Major competitors: 1,140
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.4
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| concerned | 70 | 100 | 32 | 51 1,160 competing apps Median installs: 525 Avg rating: 4.0 | 59 | 57 | 17 major competitor apps |
| concerns | 71 | 100 | 34 | 56 2,213 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.1 | 68 | 66 | 12 major competitor apps |
| strategy | 73 | 100 | 44 | 69 13,433 competing apps Median installs: 950 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 361 major competitor apps |
| health | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 43,584 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 541 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 41,009 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 614 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 46 | 75 30,986 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 384 major competitor apps |
| sheet | 71 | 100 | 35 | 57 2,509 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 23 major competitor apps |
| images | 70 | 100 | 48 | 74 28,277 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 316 major competitor apps |
| range | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 41,525 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 569 major competitor apps |
| curated | 73 | 100 | 44 | 68 12,445 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.4 | — | — | 210 major competitor apps |
| digital | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 52,249 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 719 major competitor apps |
| information | 66 | 100 | 52 | 85 121,649 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,140 major competitor apps |
| used | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 50,542 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 503 major competitor apps |
| manage | 67 | 100 | 52 | 84 108,372 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,629 major competitor apps |
| created | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 26,301 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 303 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 72 | 100 | 45 | 70 17,315 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 334 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 114,639 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,562 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 66 | 100 | 53 | 85 130,035 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,613 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 49 | 80 62,180 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 543 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 71 | 100 | 34 | 56 2,391 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 9 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 55 | 85 130,850 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,321 major competitor apps |
| many | 68 | 100 | 50 | 81 76,885 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,358 major competitor apps |
| provides | 68 | 100 | 49 | 81 72,525 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 568 major competitor apps |
| tools | 70 | 100 | 47 | 76 36,532 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 596 major competitor apps |
| quality | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 58,826 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 786 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