Malaria Vectors
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 104 keywords for Malaria Vectors in Google Play
Malaria Vectors tracks 104 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 104 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 71.6, difficulty 41.0.
Key to Central American Malaria Vectors
Tracked keywords
104
0 ranked • 104 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
71.6
Top keyword: institute
Avg difficulty
41.0
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 61.8
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 71
- 59.7
contained
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 36.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 105
- 66.1
assistance
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 43.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 543
- 62.9
north
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 355
- 63.5
landscape
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 615
Unranked opportunities
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Competitors: 71
contained
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 36.4 • Competitors: 105
assistance
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 43.9 • Competitors: 543
north
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Competitors: 355
landscape
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Competitors: 615
High competition keywords
mobile
Total apps: 280,245 • Major competitors: 11,030
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
designed
Total apps: 264,190 • Major competitors: 8,559
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.7
many
Total apps: 166,917 • Major competitors: 11,862
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.9
support
Total apps: 164,701 • Major competitors: 7,885
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
based
Total apps: 154,090 • Major competitors: 5,983
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.0
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| character | 72 | 100 | 47 | 70 23,789 competing apps Median installs: 8,248 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 2,285 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 54 | 76 56,451 competing apps Median installs: 4,962 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 3,369 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 55 | 83 164,701 competing apps Median installs: 1,612 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 7,885 major competitor apps |
| section | 71 | 100 | 46 | 72 32,290 competing apps Median installs: 1,214 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 1,115 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 117,205 competing apps Median installs: 3,092 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 5,232 major competitor apps |
| designed | 65 | 100 | 54 | 86 264,190 competing apps Median installs: 798 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 8,559 major competitor apps |
| institute | 74 | 100 | 37 | 62 7,505 competing apps Median installs: 577 Avg rating: 1.7 | — | — | 71 major competitor apps |
| control | 67 | 100 | 54 | 82 133,166 competing apps Median installs: 1,827 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 7,394 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 280,245 competing apps Median installs: 1,393 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 11,030 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 52 | 81 113,460 competing apps Median installs: 1,424 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 5,639 major competitor apps |
| process | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 55,957 competing apps Median installs: 997 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 1,909 major competitor apps |
| among | 71 | 100 | 47 | 73 37,218 competing apps Median installs: 2,744 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 2,000 major competitor apps |
| contained | 74 | 100 | 36 | 60 5,596 competing apps Median installs: 4,375 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 105 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 73 | 100 | 43 | 57 3,782 competing apps Median installs: 1,840 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 114 major competitor apps |
| efficient | 70 | 100 | 49 | 76 59,537 competing apps Median installs: 535 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 1,270 major competitor apps |
| others | 72 | 100 | 48 | 71 28,639 competing apps Median installs: 3,060 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 1,629 major competitor apps |
| assistance | 74 | 100 | 44 | 66 13,985 competing apps Median installs: 1,066 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 543 major competitor apps |
| many | 67 | 100 | 56 | 83 166,917 competing apps Median installs: 5,298 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 11,862 major competitor apps |
| good | 69 | 100 | 50 | 78 81,364 competing apps Median installs: 4,712 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 4,765 major competitor apps |
| type | 70 | 100 | 52 | 75 48,818 competing apps Median installs: 4,009 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 2,839 major competitor apps |
| official | 68 | 100 | 53 | 80 106,140 competing apps Median installs: 996 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 3,656 major competitor apps |
| work | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 120,257 competing apps Median installs: 1,899 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 5,252 major competitor apps |
| original | 71 | 100 | 51 | 72 33,374 competing apps Median installs: 6,349 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 2,727 major competitor apps |
| literature | 73 | 100 | 35 | 57 3,574 competing apps Median installs: 4,010 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 69 major competitor apps |
| suspected | 69 | 100 | 27 | 41 370 competing apps Median installs: 4,832 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 20 major competitor apps |
App Description
Key to Central American Malaria Vectors
This key is based on Wilkerson and Strickman, 1990 (Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 6: 7-34) who used published literature and original observations. In addition to morphology, country of occurrence has been used as a character in identification. Actual specimens, and often type material, were examined for nearly all the species. Literature used here includes: Faran, 1980, Albimanus Section of subgenus Nyssorhynchus (Contributions of the American Entomological Institute, vol. 15: 1-215.); Linthicum, 1988, Argyritarsis Section of subgenus Nyssorhynchus (Mosquito Systematics, vol. 20: 99-271); Zavortink, 1970, treehole Anopheles (Contributions of the American Entomological Institute, vol. 5: 1-35); Zavortink, 1973, subgenus Kerteszia (Contributions of the American Entomological Institute, vol. 9: 1-54; and, Floore et al., 1976, Crucians Subgroup of subgenus Anopheles (Mosquito Systematics 8: 1-109).
This key is designed to be used with a magnification device, preferably a dissection microscope with good illumination. An introduction to the process of identifying mosquitoes with diagnostic keys and a primer on mosquito taxonomy can be found at http://www.wrbu.org/tut/keys_tut00.html.
Institutional support for this work was provided by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Entomology Branch, the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Entomology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mosquito Species Diversity and Landscape Change. Amendment to agreement # DW-33-92296801). Photographs and illustrations by Judith Stoffer, and assistance with the mobile key version by Desmond Foley. The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
*Significant malaria vectors found in Central America
Anopheles (Anopheles) freeborni
An. (Ano.) Quadrimaculatus Complex
An. (Ano.) pseudopunctipennis
An. (Ano.) punctimacula
An. (Kerteszia) pholidotus
An. (Nyssorhynchus) albimanus
An. (Nys.) Albitarsis Complex (marajoara)
An. (Nys.) aquasalis
An. (Nys.) darlingi
Authors:
Richard Wilkerson
Daniel Strickman
Photographs by Judith Stoffer
How to cite the key:
Wilkerson, R.C. and D. Strickman. 2014. Lucid identification key to adult female anophelines of Central America. Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, Smithsonian Institution. Washington DC.
