Thank you for your feedback and suggested revisions. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have considered the comments and have taken steps to address them accordingly.

We have made corrections to the majority of the mistakes pointed out by the reviewer. Additionally, we have contested some of the criticisms by providing further clarification and supporting evidence. We have also included additional references to strengthen the credibility of our work.

Regarding the critic about the lack of exploration beyond the discussion, we would like to emphasize that the primary aim of our research is to provide a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the seismicity in this particular margin. While we do lean towards the possibility of strike-slip faulting as an explanation for the current seismicity and its characteristics, we feel that the available data from the centra and northern parts of the margin do not provide enough diversity and/or quality to definitively rule out any hypotheses or fully support them.

In order to form a more conclusive hypothesis or even generate a new one, it would be crucial to obtain a substantial amount of data on the sea bottom of the margin, specifically related to seismology, as well as acquire high-resolution seismic 3D data in areas where seismicity is more prevalent. Once we have access to such data in the future, it may be possible to infer certain structures or parameters that could lend support to existing hypotheses or enable the formulation of new ones.

Until that time, we believe it would be premature to propose a final hypothesis regarding the origin of seismicity for the entire margin, as even the northern and central parts could exhibit distinct sources and dynamics contributing to the observed seismic activity.

We attach a document where comments are assessed one by one and corresponding changes have been made in the manuscript text and figures

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your input and the opportunity to address your concerns. If you have any further suggestions or inquiries, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

The authors

Response to Reviewer 2

We appreciate the time and effort invested on reviewing the work and thank you for the suggestions, comments and the editing. We have now made the pertinent changes included in the revised version. Most of them were accepted, except from paragraphs were other changes were included following the suggestions and comments of a previous revision.

The question aside from the text that the reviewer posts is if there would be a “radial” rather than linear pattern in the seismicity that seems to coincide with the pattern of a magnetic anomaly in the area (fig 4c).

The answer is: possibly. Although at large distance the striped NW-SE pattern seems quite clear, it is also acknowledgeable that in closer inspection the striped trend gets diffuse, adding difficulty on the interpretation and grouping events in smaller clusters. The magnetic anomaly that the reviewer refers to, results of the structural disposition of the basement rocks, the variscan formations that can be seen on land. Our understanding is that probably the pattern of seismicity presents more complication than the simplistic NW-SE bands we talk about, something that it is intrinsic to the study of this type of moderate, low seismicity in intraplate “quiet” settings. Therefore, any minor structure slightly moving, added to the uncertainty location, will give events that may be clustered in specific smaller scale structural features such as the one the magnetic anomaly evidences.

Regarding the text edits and comments in the manuscript, we proceed to deal with all of them individually.

Line 152 comment on “the map shows in this area”. It is an unfortunate phrasing. We have changed the text to serve the meaning we wanted to give to this sentence.

Line 198 “however the separation in two bands is not that simple”. Well, this is a poorly expressed explanation. Please refer to the introduction of this document. We have rephrased.

Line 218 “inverse fault” changed to reverse fault.

Line 226 “which relates to an unknown error”. This refers to the fact that the depth location of seismicity has always a higher error than in the XY coordinates. This is due to the method for getting the events depth, which uses as input a preliminary velocity model. In turn, this velocity model and its variations affect very much the depth of solutions and the more geologically restricted the better. In this area, where there is an abundant set of deep seismic reflection and refraction data, the local velocity model is as good as it can be, but it also has its own depth-velocity  errors.

Line 232 “wihin it”. To the north of it.

Line 235 “the referred vertical alignment would be consistent with a volcanic origin for those particular events”. The reviewer says (rightly) that there is not vertical alignment in this location. The reviewer number one also pointed out this contradiction. We have amended those paragraphs, but still noting that some vertical alignments may have to do with volcanism as the area shows an abundance of these edifices in close areas, preferring this interpretation to a structural cause, due to the mantle depth of most of the events.

Line 275 “main N-S disposition of the magnetic anomalies”. The reviewer points out the circular pattern in the magnetic anomaly, which seems to cluster also the events. And yes, the reviewer is right about that, we have partially answered or commented this fact at the beginning of the document and also in the text. The phrase refers more to the N-S alignment of the oceanic magnetic anomalies, which are parallel to the ridge. Of course, in the continental platform and margin, the complexity of the magnetic anomalies has to do with the continental basement. The seismicity seems to cluster around several structural features within the margin but we did not find a clear relation to known structures or outcropping features in the sea floor.

Line 299 “the text highlights the limitations of seismotectonic interpretations due to inconclusive mapping of structures in the sea floor of the WIM”. We have rewritten this paragraph and tried not to repeat the things, moving them to section 2.

Line 227 “may have been bouncing from its perpendicular to extension direction”. This means that the Iberian Peninsula, specifically its N-S Margin along Spain and Portugal, which now is parallel to the ridge, may have been oblique to the ridge extension direction in several periods while the Atlantic opening took place. This means the micro Iberian plate included some type of rotation adding complexity to the margin structure. The presence of the triple point to the north also supports the evidences of rotational movement of Iberia while extension along the ridge maintained its direction.

The revised manuscript with the changes is uploaded in the system for its reassessment.

Thank you, sincerely,

The Authors

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the recommendation for publication and we are pleased that the revisions were pertinent. Regarding your comment about Alves (in review), I have read the manuscript and although it deals with the southernmost segment of the margin, it may be adequate to cite. I will write to the Editor of the volume and ask if this can be done now or later.

Thank you for your work as handling Editor,

Sincerely

The Authors