## 4 Discussion
Similar methods have been employed to complete a wetland inventory in the Prairie region of Alberta [46] and future applications of this work are planned in the PPR areas of Saskatchewan. Despite improvements to mapping potholes using the workflow presented, its simplicity does come with limitations. The biggest being its strong dependency on the timing of cloud-free S2 images in alignment with key wetland seasonal states (peak flooding, green up, and dry season). This workflow also depends on seasonal snow melt although the methods could potentially be of use to areas that have other reliable wetland flooding seasonal dynamics (i.e., very wet and very dry seasons). This method also cannot provide information about wetland form and vegetation structure because wetlands are only classified through the presence of seasonal water and modelled vegetation height. Additionally, in a complex wetland environment with many more wetland types and forms (bogs and fens), this method will fail to differentiate these classes. Therefore, the methods presented here are probably best served for large-scale wetland inventory data across PPR areas in Canada and the United States. Moving forward, various technological improvements can help the classification of water across time and, thus, improve PPR wetland data. The RCM and NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) should provide better SAR data to monitor open water and wetland flooding across time. These SAR datasets can hopefully provide additional wetland dynamic information, such as open water flood frequency (via specular scattering) and flooded vegetation frequency (via double-bounce scattering) [27]. Additionally, optical datasets tend to move towards higher-resolution images with more frequent revisit times, which will help capture small and temporary wetland features. S2 10 m resolution images and the satellite's five-day revisit time are already generally sufficient for the application of PPR wetland mapping, but many temporary wetlands are still missed with a 400-800 m\({}^{2}\) MMU. Results of this study are comparable to those found in other, similar research. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [24] presented comparable results by focusing on wetland dynamics in a PPR area in the United States. Our study substitutes S2 data in GEE to capture potholes dynamics rather than NAIP imagery, which is only available for the United States. [PERSON] et al. [17] also achieved similar results in the Saskatchewan PPR with Landsat data and an unsupervised sub-pixel water fraction. As [PERSON] et al. [17] note, it is likely that the S2 methods here improve upon this work by providing higher spatial and temporal resolution when compared to Landsat. Like this study, [PERSON] et al. [31] found very few areas of semi-permanent and permanent wetlands with most potholes being temporary and seasonal. When compared to other existing inventories in Alberta, results from this study typically show many more wetland features (Figure 6). When compared to the SPOT-derived portions of Alberta's Merged Wetland Inventory (Figure 6b), the time-series-based results (Figure 6a) show about 8-10 times more pothole wetland features, likely due to the use of early spring \"peak flooding\" imagery. Comparisons to inventories from high-resolution photo-interpretation data (see Table 4 validation) show comparable results, although the photo-interpreted inventories capture many more wetlands that are smaller than 400 m\({}^{2}\) and are generally more reliable.