First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments, which will undoubtedly help us improve the quality of the manuscript. Regarding the minor edits, we have already incorporated them into the revised version of the paper. We will also attempt to expand the figures to double-column format, if feasible, and we will carefully review the errors and figure captions to align them with the reviewer’s suggestions.

As for the comment regarding the thermal conductivity of the crust, 

The reviewer’s observation is correct: the crustal thermal conductivity value of 3.1 W/m·K is within the upper range. We intentionally selected this higher value to extend the range of sediment conductivity values considered in our analysis. Nevertheless, as the reviewer correctly notes, the critical threshold depth is determined solely by the thermal conductivity and thickness of the sediment layer. Crustal materials typically exhibit higher thermal conductivities than most sediments, particularly unconsolidated or porous ones. Since sediment conductivity is generally lower than that of the crust, a constant surface heat flow causes the depth of the isotherm to decrease with increasing sediment thickness until the critical threshold depth is reached. Importantly, this threshold depth is independent of crustal conductivity. However, if lower crustal conductivity values are assumed, the depth of the 150ºC isotherm would be shallower in regions where sediment thickness is below the threshold depth.

Furthermore, following the reviewer’s observation, we have slightly modified the corresponding paragraph (lines 505–512) to include a comment explaining why we have used a high crustal conductivity value. Now the paragraph reads as follows:

"Figure 7 shows the variations in the depth of the 150ºC isotherm in relation to sediment thickness, surface heat flow, and four different thermal conductivity values for the sediments (panels Fig. 7A to D). The calculated trend indicates that, for a constant measured surface heat flow and constant thermal conductivity, the isotherm depth decreases as sediment thickness increases until it reaches a critical threshold depth. Beyond this depth value, the isotherm is stable. Our results also show that, as expected, for a given thermal conductivity, an increase in surface heat flow leads to a relative shallowing of the isotherm, while a decrease in surface heat flow produces the opposite effect. Notably, an increase in thermal conductivity is associated with greater deepening of the 150ºC isotherm for the same heat flow and sediment thickness values. The crustal thermal conductivity value of 3.1 W/m·K, which is within the upper range of typical values, was selected to provide a broader range for assessing the influence of sediment thermal conductivity on subsurface thermal gradients. Importantly, this threshold depth is independent of the crustal conductivity. However, lower crustal conductivity values would result in a shallower depth of the 150ºC isotherm in regions where the sediment thicknesses are below the threshold depth"

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. Minor edits have been incorporated into the revised version of the paper. Responses to other comments are provided below.

- This important database appears to include only Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary successions (i.e. no Paleozoic or older sediments)

The referee is right, the presented database includes only Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary successions because, to date, there is no globally available information on Paleozoic or older sediments at the scale of Spain, aside from a few localized studies. Additionally, there are no recognized Permian strata in Portugal, nor are such strata present in the conjugate margins of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Post-orogenic sedimentation appears to have commenced only in the Norian stage, well into the Triassic. Beneath this, there exists only the Variscan metamorphic basement.

- In the introduction it would be very useful to indicate the range of ages of the sedimentary succession in the database.

Taking advantage of Table S1, we have added a new column specifying the age ranges of the sedimentary files included in the database. Consequently, all relevant information is now consolidated within the table. The revised text reads as follows: “The data included in SedDARE-IB are listed in Table S1, along with the primary sources from which they were gathered, the geological areas covered, and relevant details such as the minimum, maximum, and average thickness ranges, the age ranges, and key references associated with the datasets”.

2.2.5.- This section  is quite unlike the other basin descriptions. It describes the tectonic features and evolution of the Guadalquivir Basin but there is little information about the basins sedimentary fill.  Would be good to give the same information for this basins as for the others.

The new text reads as follows “The Guadalquivir Basin, located in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula and spanning c. 57,000 km², is a foreland basin bounded to the north by the Iberian Massif and to the south by the Betic Cordillera, which continues into the Rif Chain of northern Africa. Like the westernmost part of the Betics, it was influenced by post-Cretaceous tectonic movements between Africa and Eurasia. Studies suggest significant N-S convergence to have affected the Guadalquivir Basin from mid-Oligocene to the late Miocene, followed by WNW-directed oblique convergence until the present day (Macchiavelli et al., 2017). According to Barnolas et al. (2019) and references therein, the basin can be divided into two zone. The northern one is filled with autochthonous sediments, whereas the southern zone also contains chaotic masses of Mesozoic and Cenozoic allochthonous materials that slid from the Subbetic units during the late Miocene compression in the external Betics. The autochthonous sedimentary infill comprises six (6) Miocene seismic-stratigraphic sequences, ranging in age from the late Langhian-early Serravallian to the late Messinian. Overlying these Miocene sequences are Pliocene-Quaternary strata that record westward sediment progradation along the basin axis (Berástegui et al., 1998). The southern margin of the basin involves several salt diapirs, with Triassic evaporates in their cores, which were tectonically compressed during the Cenozoic. These diapirs form multiple frontal imbricate wedges. The frontal imbricates involve late Serravallian to late Tortonian sediments (sequences 3 to 5, as described by Berastegui et al. (1998).  In particular, Sequence 6, which spans from the late Tortonian to the late Messinian, clearly postdates all the structural features. This indicates that significant shortening in the External Betics was concluded by approximately 6.3 Ma (Messinian). Tectonic activity, including normal faulting at basement level, occurred during early to middle Serravallian times. The basin primarily originated through orogenic wedge accretion along its active southern margin, with flexural subsidence propagating towards the foreland basin per se (García-Castellanos et al., 2002). Readers are directed to the work of Civis et al. (2004) and Barnolas et al. (2019) for further detail on the basin's sedimentary infill and evolution”

259-260: Present day? sediment composition on the shelf varies with water? Depth.

It should read “Sediment composition on the shelf varies with depth" This has already been corrected in the text.

Line 288: Replace ‘Neo-Tethys’ by ‘Atlantic’??

We have slightly modified the text; it now reads "Neo-Tethys/Atlantic," as there is no consensus among authors. While some consider "Atlantic" acceptable, others advocate for the presence of the Neo-Tethys.

Line 292:  I would say the Guadelquivir basin lies to the SE of this basin?  – Also I’m wondering if it makes sense to make this statement as the Guadelquivir basin did not exist when the rift forming?

In this context, we specifically refer to the Guadalquivir Bank rather than the Guadalquivir Basin. Within the framework of the Algarve Basin, the Guadalquivir Bank serves as a pivotal feature, functioning both as a structural boundary and a depositional element. The Algarve Basin hosts a diverse and extensive stratigraphic record, comprising sedimentary sequences ranging from the Jurassic to the Cenozoic. These sequences document significant geological events, including major episodes of rifting, subsidence, and subsequent compressional deformation.

Between Lines 300 and 309 – clarify and harmonise the ages given for the development phases of the Algarve basin.

The new text reads as follows “Sedimentation continued through the Mesozoic and was characterized by the accumulation of alternating carbonate and siliciclastic units, indicating shallow marine to continental environments. It was interrupted in the Cretaceous by tectonic inversion resulting from oblique convergence between northwest Africa and Iberia, causing important depositional hiatuses and unconformities. The oldest offshore Cenozoic deposits in the Algarve Basin are dated as Paleocene to Oligocene, lying unconformably over folded Lower Cretaceous strata (Terrinha, 1998; Lopes et al., 2006; Roque, 2007, Matias, 2007). In summary, Cenozoic strata overlay folded and thrusted older units, suggesting that tectonic inversion occurred predominantly after the Cenomanian and lasted until the late Oligocene-Aquitanian. Nevertheless, present-day compression is still recorded in the Algarve Basin, being NW-SE oriented and, driven by oblique collision between northwest Africa and southwest Eurasia (Ribeiro et al., 1996).”

Figure 7: You plot values for various basins but it is not clear how there data were gathered. A deeper discussion of their significance would be helpful to illustrate the relevance of your models and Line 503.

We have now introduced the most relevant references from which the thermal data were sourced. Additionally, the revised text clarifies that we used constant values for the thermal conductivity and heat production of the crust. The analysis also incorporates the measured heat flow at each point studied, with the only variable being the thermal conductivity of the sediments. This parameter was adjusted within a plausible range to demonstrate how variations in conductivity can influence the depth of the 150°C isotherm