Lepidopteran Families
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 109 keywords for Lepidopteran Families in Google Play
Lepidopteran Families tracks 109 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 109 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 70.3, difficulty 42.2.
Interactive key to Lepidopteran Families of Biosecurity Concern
Tracked keywords
109
0 ranked • 109 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.3
Top keyword: would like
Avg difficulty
42.2
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 64.0
would like
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 557
- 65.2
chosen
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 619
- 60.4
plant
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 321
- 65.9
presented
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 401
- 61.0
keys
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 448
Unranked opportunities
would like
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.2 • Competitors: 557
chosen
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.2 • Competitors: 619
plant
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Competitors: 321
presented
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Competitors: 401
keys
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Competitors: 448
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 291,080 • Major competitors: 22,614
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.6
mobile
Total apps: 282,221 • Major competitors: 11,184
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
information
Total apps: 268,932 • Major competitors: 8,237
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.8
features
Total apps: 255,883 • Major competitors: 15,252
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.0
using
Total apps: 221,102 • Major competitors: 12,104
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.7
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | 71 | 100 | 48 | 71 30,067 competing apps Median installs: 4,595 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 2,501 major competitor apps |
| health | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 70,051 competing apps Median installs: 784 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,979 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 51 | 78 76,022 competing apps Median installs: 2,320 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 4,305 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 54 | 76 57,149 competing apps Median installs: 4,948 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 3,390 major competitor apps |
| sheet | 73 | 100 | 36 | 57 3,963 competing apps Median installs: 3,137 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 151 major competitor apps |
| images | 69 | 100 | 52 | 77 71,874 competing apps Median installs: 2,942 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,317 major competitor apps |
| range | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 90,765 competing apps Median installs: 1,487 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 4,605 major competitor apps |
| curated | 72 | 100 | 47 | 69 22,703 competing apps Median installs: 763 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 737 major competitor apps |
| digital | 68 | 100 | 51 | 81 125,756 competing apps Median installs: 892 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 4,632 major competitor apps |
| information | 65 | 100 | 55 | 86 268,932 competing apps Median installs: 1,211 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 8,237 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 54 | 81 115,812 competing apps Median installs: 3,171 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,098 major competitor apps |
| manage | 66 | 100 | 55 | 84 187,989 competing apps Median installs: 772 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 7,349 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 55,623 competing apps Median installs: 2,007 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,182 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 71 | 100 | 51 | 72 34,543 competing apps Median installs: 2,453 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 2,166 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 221,102 competing apps Median installs: 2,916 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 12,104 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 282,221 competing apps Median installs: 1,470 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 11,184 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 52 | 81 123,194 competing apps Median installs: 1,394 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,923 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 73 | 100 | 43 | 57 3,891 competing apps Median installs: 1,834 Avg rating: 3.8 | — | — | 118 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 60 | 85 203,704 competing apps Median installs: 3,046 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 14,567 major competitor apps |
| many | 67 | 100 | 56 | 83 165,047 competing apps Median installs: 5,390 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 11,698 major competitor apps |
| provides | 67 | 100 | 54 | 83 165,172 competing apps Median installs: 1,468 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,576 major competitor apps |
| tools | 69 | 100 | 52 | 77 67,999 competing apps Median installs: 1,427 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 3,468 major competitor apps |
| quality | 67 | 100 | 55 | 82 146,057 competing apps Median installs: 2,074 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 7,198 major competitor apps |
| would like | 74 | 100 | 42 | 64 10,546 competing apps Median installs: 3,690 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 557 major competitor apps |
| easily | 66 | 100 | 56 | 85 212,908 competing apps Median installs: 1,631 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 9,235 major competitor apps |
App Description
Interactive key to Lepidopteran Families of Biosecurity Concern
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
