... Although "NFW" has gradually gained acceptance in academia for emphasizing the geographical location rather than falsely generalizing the hydrological isolation of these waters (Mushet et al., 2015;Calhoun et al., 2017a;Lane et al., 2018), it is used inconsistently and often accompanied by "GIWs", even in the recent research literature and government documents (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). Other terms including but not limited to "small water bodies" (Biggs et al., 2017), "neglected freshwater habitats" (Hunter et al., 2017), "temporary wetlands" (Calhoun et al., 2017b), "vulnerable waters" , and "wetlandscapes" (Thorslund et al., 2017;Ghajarnia et al., 2020) are used or partially used in studying similar small wetlands, but often with a specific focus on wetland attributes (e.g., size, perimeter-area-volume relationship, and hydroperiod), functions (e.g., flood attenuation, nutrient retention, and biodiversity support), and study scales (e.g., individual wetlands, wetlands across landscapes, and wetlands at watershed and regional scales), respectively. Such marked heterogeneity has been crossvalidated by several reviews and calls for improved research and collaborative utilization of these wetland systems (Hunter et al., 2017;Chen et al., 2019;Golden et al., 2019;Sayer et al., 2020), which indicate the prevailing perspectives at local and regional scales --NFWs are studied with different emphases under different motivations, depending upon where they are located and what we are interested in. ...