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 70.0, difficulty 44.3.
Key to Central American Malaria Vectors
Tracked keywords
104
0 ranked • 104 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.0
Top keyword: often
Avg difficulty
44.3
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 68.1
often
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 49.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 755
- 68.4
country
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 64.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,144
- 68.0
human
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 717
- 68.5
natural
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 47.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,101
- 67.9
almost
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 46.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,047
Unranked opportunities
often
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 49.9 • Competitors: 755
country
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 64.1 • Competitors: 1,144
human
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.9 • Competitors: 717
natural
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 47.8 • Competitors: 1,101
almost
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 46.6 • Competitors: 1,047
High competition keywords
mobile
Total apps: 113,294 • Major competitors: 10,537
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.5
designed
Total apps: 96,808 • Major competitors: 9,110
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.6
many
Total apps: 96,753 • Major competitors: 12,574
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 61.9
support
Total apps: 68,575 • Major competitors: 7,371
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 59.8
based
Total apps: 67,175 • Major competitors: 6,592
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 62.6
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| character | 72 | 100 | 52 | 70 13,287 competing apps Median installs: 65,694 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 2,166 major competitor apps |
| version | 69 | 100 | 61 | 77 30,986 competing apps Median installs: 38,306 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 3,300 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 60 | 83 68,575 competing apps Median installs: 34,249 Avg rating: 3.0 | — | — | 7,371 major competitor apps |
| section | 72 | 100 | 50 | 70 12,915 competing apps Median installs: 29,599 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 1,080 major competitor apps |
| used | 67 | 100 | 61 | 82 61,233 competing apps Median installs: 32,225 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 5,711 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 96,808 competing apps Median installs: 27,484 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 9,110 major competitor apps |
| institute | 71 | 100 | 35 | 57 2,080 competing apps Median installs: 13,511 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 67 major competitor apps |
| control | 68 | 100 | 59 | 81 56,251 competing apps Median installs: 34,640 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 6,945 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 60 | 86 113,294 competing apps Median installs: 25,796 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 10,537 major competitor apps |
| key | 68 | 100 | 57 | 79 40,681 competing apps Median installs: 35,653 Avg rating: 3.0 | — | — | 4,828 major competitor apps |
| process | 70 | 100 | 50 | 74 20,843 competing apps Median installs: 26,049 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 1,825 major competitor apps |
| among | 71 | 100 | 51 | 73 18,891 competing apps Median installs: 33,950 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 2,147 major competitor apps |
| contained | 71 | 100 | 37 | 60 3,247 competing apps Median installs: 19,662 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 113 major competitor apps |
| diagnostic | 70 | 100 | 53 | 55 1,622 competing apps Median installs: 19,557 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 105 major competitor apps |
| efficient | 71 | 100 | 54 | 72 16,594 competing apps Median installs: 15,694 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 1,185 major competitor apps |
| others | 71 | 100 | 54 | 71 14,891 competing apps Median installs: 35,854 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 1,791 major competitor apps |
| assistance | 72 | 100 | 48 | 64 5,314 competing apps Median installs: 29,345 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 524 major competitor apps |
| many | 66 | 100 | 62 | 85 96,753 competing apps Median installs: 43,740 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 12,574 major competitor apps |
| good | 68 | 100 | 54 | 79 44,246 competing apps Median installs: 35,774 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 4,689 major competitor apps |
| type | 70 | 100 | 58 | 75 25,324 competing apps Median installs: 37,985 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 2,782 major competitor apps |
| official | 69 | 100 | 60 | 78 38,012 competing apps Median installs: 28,214 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 3,398 major competitor apps |
| work | 68 | 100 | 61 | 81 52,752 competing apps Median installs: 28,708 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 5,048 major competitor apps |
| original | 71 | 100 | 58 | 73 18,382 competing apps Median installs: 49,188 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 2,593 major competitor apps |
| literature | 70 | 100 | 35 | 56 1,898 competing apps Median installs: 23,216 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 67 major competitor apps |
| suspected | 67 | 100 | 29 | 40 214 competing apps Median installs: 38,570 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 21 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.
