《金银岛》自从有中文版本以来，一直深受国内读者青睐。在众多译本中，20世纪80年代出版的荣如德译本影响较大；2016年出版的任小红译本也享有较高的认可度。因此，本文从生态翻译学的三维转换视角入手对比分析两个译本，探讨两位译者在翻译过程中如何实现“三维转换”以及怎样进行“适应”与“选择”，并发掘其背后的历史文化因素。 本文采用定性研究方法，从语言维、文化维和交际维对两译本进行对比分析。语言维方面，主要从词汇层面和句子层面进行分析；文化维方面，主要分析中外宗教文化和社会文化的转换；交际维方面，主要分析原作者与目的语读者，以及小说人物之间的交际意图如何得以实现。 研究发现，荣如德多采用异化译法，译文中常见带有政治意识形态色彩的词汇和欧化句法，并且注释较多；任小红多采用归化译法，句法灵活多变，语义比较流畅自然，尤其惯用四字词语，但注释较少。荣如德和任小红译本的不同一定程度上受各自所处的翻译生态环境的影响，但更是译者自主进行适应和选择的结果。

Treasure Island has been favored by readers at home since the publication of its first Chinese version. Among various Chinese translations of this novel, Rong Rude’s version published in 1980s enjoys great popularity, and Ren Xiaohong’s version published in 2016 is widely accepted as well. Therefore, the author attempts to conduct a comparative study on the two versions from the perspective of three-dimensional transformation under eco-translatology, examining how the two translators realize three-dimenional transformation, and exploring the historical and cultural reasons for their different adaptation and selection. This thesis is a qualitative study in which a comparative analysis is made from linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions. The analysis in linguistic-dimensional transformation focuses on the lexical level and the syntactic level; the analysis in cultural-dimension focuses on the transformation of religious culture and social culture from the source language into the target language; the analysis in communicative-dimensional transformation focuses on how the communicative intention between the author and the target readers as well as between the characters in the novel is conveyed. It is found that Rong Rude prefers foreignization, tending to adopt political ideology-loaded words and westernized sentence structure. While Ren Xiaohong prefers domestication, tending to adopt flexible sentence structure which makes her version more natural and fluent, and she is particularly in favor of four-character words. In addition, Rong Rude adds much more annotations than Ren Xiaohong does. These differences between the two versions to some extent are caused by the different translational eco-environments, but more importantly it is a result of the translators’ own adaptation and selection.