目的 比较双层叠帐法、人帐诱法和人诱停落法对白纹伊蚊成蚊密度监测的效果，为白纹伊蚊成蚊监测及登革热等伊蚊传播疾病的防控提供参考。方法 2016年8-9月，于江苏省宜兴市太华镇内选择成蚊密度较高的3处生境，分别采用3种监测方法开展白纹伊蚊成蚊密度监测，根据拉丁方试验设计，依次轮换监测生境与方法，共进行3轮试验。组间两两比较采用LSD检验；气象资料中不同生境间比较采用方差分析，组间两两比较采用LSD检验；成蚊密度与气象数据间的相关关系采用Pearson相关分析。结果 人诱停落法测得白纹伊蚊成蚊平均密度为（30.44±8.70）只/（人·h），高于双层叠帐法[（10.67±7.42）只/（帐·h）]和人帐诱法[（12.89±2.53）只/（帐·h）]，差异均有统计学意义（LSD-t_{双层叠帐法}=6.865，P=0.021；LSD-t_人帐诱法=6.093，P=0.026）；双层叠帐法与人帐诱法监测效果之间差异无统计学意义（LSD-t=-0.772，P=0.521）。平均温度、平均相对湿度和平均风速与白纹伊蚊密度之间均无相关关系（r_温度=-0.019，P=0.961；r_湿度=-0.031，P=0.938；r_风速=-0.332，P=0.383）。结论 双层叠帐法与人帐诱法监测效果相当，但二者诱蚊效率均不及人诱停落法。双层叠帐法在保护诱集者方面优势明显，在蚊媒疾病流行区域及暴发期间，仍然是一种行之有效的监测方法。

Objective To compare the efficiency of the double mosquito net method, human-baited net trap method, and human-baited landing method in monitoring the density of adult Aedes albopictus, and to provide a reference for the monitoring of the density of adult Ae. albopictus and the prevention and control of Aedes-borne diseases including dengue fever. Methods From August to September, 2016, three methods were used to monitor the density of adult Ae. albopictus mosquitoes in three habitats with high adult mosquito density in Taihua town of Yixing, Jiangsu province, China. With the Latin-square experiment design, the habitats and methods were used alternately. Three rounds of experiments were performed. The least significant difference (LSD) test was used for comparison between two groups; an analysis of variance was used for comparison of meteorological data between different habitats, and the LSD test was used for comparison between two groups; Pearson correlation analysis was used to investigate the correlation between adult mosquito density and meteorological data. Results The mean density of adult Ae. albopictus mosquitoes measured by the human-baited landing method was significantly higher than that measured by the double mosquito net method[(30.44±8.70) mosquitoes/person/hour vs (10.67±7.42) mosquitoes/net/hour, LSD-t=6.865, P=0.021] and the human-baited net trap method[(30.44±8.70) mosquitoes/person/hour vs (12.89±2.53) mosquitoes/net/hour, LSD-t=6.093, P=0.026], while there was no significant difference in monitoring efficiency between the double mosquito net method and the human-baited net trap method (LSD-t=-0.772, P=0.521). Average temperature, average relative humidity, and average wind speed were not correlated with the density of Ae. albopictus (r=-0.019, -0.031, and -0.332, P=0.961, 0.938, and 0.383). Conclusion The double mosquito net method has comparable monitoring efficiency to the human-baited net trap method, but both of them are less efficient than the human-baited landing method. The double mosquito net method has a clear advantage in protecting attractors and is still an efficient monitoring method in the epidemic area and during the outbreak of mosquito-borne diseases.