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 40.9.
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
40.9
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 61.8
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 73
- 59.6
contained
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 36.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 102
- 66.1
assistance
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 43.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 556
- 62.9
north
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 358
- 63.5
landscape
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 625
Unranked opportunities
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Competitors: 73
contained
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 36.3 • Competitors: 102
assistance
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 43.9 • Competitors: 556
north
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.5 • Competitors: 358
landscape
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.6 • Competitors: 625
High competition keywords
mobile
Total apps: 281,675 • Major competitors: 11,156
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
designed
Total apps: 260,108 • Major competitors: 8,465
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.6
support
Total apps: 172,150 • Major competitors: 8,016
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
many
Total apps: 165,150 • Major competitors: 11,691
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.8
based
Total apps: 151,543 • Major competitors: 5,852
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.0
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| character | 72 | 100 | 47 | 70 24,383 competing apps Median installs: 8,258 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 2,303 major competitor apps |
| version | 70 | 100 | 54 | 76 57,086 competing apps Median installs: 4,938 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 3,388 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 55 | 83 172,150 competing apps Median installs: 1,475 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 8,016 major competitor apps |
| section | 71 | 100 | 46 | 72 32,785 competing apps Median installs: 1,226 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,127 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 54 | 81 115,888 competing apps Median installs: 3,156 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,095 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 54 | 86 260,108 competing apps Median installs: 843 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 8,465 major competitor apps |
| institute | 74 | 100 | 37 | 62 7,607 competing apps Median installs: 583 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 73 major competitor apps |
| control | 67 | 100 | 54 | 82 136,851 competing apps Median installs: 1,832 Avg rating: 3.8 | — | — | 7,550 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 281,675 competing apps Median installs: 1,458 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 11,156 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 52 | 81 122,251 competing apps Median installs: 1,373 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,893 major competitor apps |
| process | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 56,876 competing apps Median installs: 998 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 1,932 major competitor apps |
| among | 71 | 100 | 47 | 73 36,845 competing apps Median installs: 2,786 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,945 major competitor apps |
| contained | 74 | 100 | 36 | 60 5,553 competing apps Median installs: 4,524 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 102 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 73 | 100 | 43 | 57 3,881 competing apps Median installs: 1,837 Avg rating: 3.8 | — | — | 119 major competitor apps |
| efficient | 70 | 100 | 49 | 76 58,042 competing apps Median installs: 641 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,295 major competitor apps |
| others | 72 | 100 | 48 | 71 28,228 competing apps Median installs: 3,152 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,604 major competitor apps |
| assistance | 74 | 100 | 44 | 66 14,203 competing apps Median installs: 1,066 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 556 major competitor apps |
| many | 67 | 100 | 56 | 83 165,150 competing apps Median installs: 5,372 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 11,691 major competitor apps |
| good | 69 | 100 | 50 | 78 82,119 competing apps Median installs: 4,706 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 4,783 major competitor apps |
| type | 70 | 100 | 52 | 75 49,653 competing apps Median installs: 3,942 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 2,859 major competitor apps |
| official | 68 | 100 | 53 | 80 111,328 competing apps Median installs: 901 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,744 major competitor apps |
| work | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 122,447 competing apps Median installs: 1,894 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 5,297 major competitor apps |
| original | 71 | 100 | 51 | 72 34,054 competing apps Median installs: 6,300 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,774 major competitor apps |
| literature | 73 | 100 | 35 | 57 3,612 competing apps Median installs: 3,976 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 73 major competitor apps |
| suspected | 69 | 100 | 27 | 41 360 competing apps Median installs: 4,896 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 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.
