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
- 64.2
would like
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 567
- 65.4
chosen
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 629
- 60.3
plant
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 315
- 66.0
presented
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 407
- 61.2
keys
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 446
Unranked opportunities
would like
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Competitors: 567
chosen
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.3 • Competitors: 629
plant
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Competitors: 315
presented
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Competitors: 407
keys
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Competitors: 446
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 286,405 • Major competitors: 22,380
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.7
mobile
Total apps: 280,377 • Major competitors: 11,045
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
information
Total apps: 264,552 • Major competitors: 8,149
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.8
features
Total apps: 250,263 • Major competitors: 15,009
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.1
using
Total apps: 224,372 • Major competitors: 12,284
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 57.0
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | 72 | 100 | 48 | 71 28,896 competing apps Median installs: 4,565 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 2,438 major competitor apps |
| health | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 68,552 competing apps Median installs: 767 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 1,950 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 51 | 78 73,369 competing apps Median installs: 2,364 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 4,216 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 54 | 76 56,468 competing apps Median installs: 4,946 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 3,365 major competitor apps |
| sheet | 73 | 100 | 36 | 57 3,917 competing apps Median installs: 3,109 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 150 major competitor apps |
| images | 69 | 100 | 52 | 77 72,732 competing apps Median installs: 2,851 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 3,368 major competitor apps |
| range | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 89,628 competing apps Median installs: 1,446 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 4,537 major competitor apps |
| curated | 72 | 100 | 47 | 70 23,104 competing apps Median installs: 725 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 753 major competitor apps |
| digital | 68 | 100 | 51 | 81 121,917 competing apps Median installs: 870 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 4,529 major competitor apps |
| information | 65 | 100 | 55 | 86 264,552 competing apps Median installs: 1,195 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 8,149 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 117,130 competing apps Median installs: 3,080 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 5,201 major competitor apps |
| manage | 66 | 100 | 55 | 84 182,361 competing apps Median installs: 743 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 7,136 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 56,377 competing apps Median installs: 1,938 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 2,197 major competitor apps |
| avoid | 71 | 100 | 51 | 72 35,014 competing apps Median installs: 2,297 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 2,175 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 224,372 competing apps Median installs: 2,821 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 12,284 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 280,377 competing apps Median installs: 1,392 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 11,045 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 52 | 81 113,803 competing apps Median installs: 1,419 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 5,667 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 73 | 100 | 43 | 57 3,784 competing apps Median installs: 1,840 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 115 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 60 | 84 197,867 competing apps Median installs: 3,066 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 14,343 major competitor apps |
| many | 67 | 100 | 56 | 83 166,770 competing apps Median installs: 5,280 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 11,812 major competitor apps |
| provides | 67 | 100 | 54 | 83 167,152 competing apps Median installs: 1,406 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 5,620 major competitor apps |
| tools | 69 | 100 | 52 | 77 69,148 competing apps Median installs: 1,349 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 3,524 major competitor apps |
| quality | 67 | 100 | 55 | 82 142,372 competing apps Median installs: 2,023 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 7,045 major competitor apps |
| would like | 74 | 100 | 42 | 64 10,665 competing apps Median installs: 3,742 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 567 major competitor apps |
| easily | 66 | 100 | 56 | 85 218,392 competing apps Median installs: 1,485 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 9,363 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
