Presented paper deals with the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires. The investigation was based on the inventory methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from the year 2006. We describe the proposal of our methodology for estimating the required biomass for modelling (using the available literature as well as Sibyla growth simulator), and subsequently we describe the modelling process with fuel models (using FCCS model) as well as the resulting greenhouse gas emissions (using FARSITE and CONSUME model) for the selected site called Krompľa – Tri Kopce in the Slovak Paradise National Park in the cadastral area of Hrabušice, in which fire destroyed an area of 80 ha in the year 2000. From the forest typology point of view, following groups of forest types are dominant at the site: Fagetum dealpinum (Limestone beech forests); Fageto-Abietum (Neutrophilous beech forests), Pinetum dealpinum (Carpathian relict calcicolous Scots pine forests), Fagetum typicum (Limestone beech forests), Fageto-Aceretum (Mixed ravine and slope forests). The results indicate that the conceptions differ in the quantification of biomass available for burning, which was underestimated in the case of TIER 1 conception in comparison to TIER 2 and TIER 3, and also in the quantification of emissions. The emissions produced during the flameless burning phase were underestimated, while the CO2 emissions were slightly overestimated when comparing TIER 2 and TIER 3 approaches. The final assessment of the whole process points out at the problematic issues in the calculations of GHG emissions.

提出的论文涉及森林火灾造成的温室气体排放的量化。该调查基于政府间气候变化专门委员会自2006年以来的清单方法论。我们描述了用于估算模型所需生物量的方法论建议（使用现有文献以及Sibyla生长模拟器），随后我们使用位于赫拉布希采地籍区斯洛伐克天堂国家公园内名为Krompľa– Tri Kopce的选定地点的燃料模型（使用FCCS模型）以及由此产生的温室气体排放量（使用FARSITE和CONSUME模型）描述建模过程。在2000年，大火烧毁了80公顷的面积。从森林类型学的角度来看，该地点主要有以下几种森林类型：Fagetum Dealpinum（石灰石山毛榉森林）；Fageto-Abietum（中性山毛榉森林），Pinetum Dealpinum（喀尔巴阡遗物钙质苏格兰松树森林），Fagetum typicum（石灰石山毛榉森林），Fageto-Aceretum（混合的沟壑和斜坡森林）。结果表明，概念在可用于燃烧的生物量的量化方面有所不同，与方法2和方法3相比，在方法1的概念中被低估了，在排放量方面也被低估了。比较方法2和方法3时，无焰燃烧阶段产生的排放量被低估了，而二氧化碳的排放量被高估了一些。整个过程的最终评估指出了温室气体排放量计算中的问题。