Fine- and microstructure profiles collected over Fieberling Seamount at 32°26′N in the eastern North Pacific reveal a variety of intensified baroclinic motions driven by astronomical diurnal tides. The forced response consists of three phenomena coexisting in a layer 200 m thick above the summit plain: (i) an anticyclonic vortex cap of core relative vorticity − 0.5f, (ii) diurnal fluctuations of ±15 cm s−1 amplitude and 200-m vertical wavelength, and (iii) turbulence levels corresponding to an eddy diffusivity κe ≅ 10 × 10−4 m2 s−1. The vortex cannot be explained by Taylor–Proudman dynamics because of its − 0.3fN2 negative potential vorticity anomaly. The ±0.3f fortnightly cycle in the vortex’s strength suggests that it is at least partially maintained against dissipative erosion by tidal rectification. The diurnal motions are slightly subinertial, turning clockwise in time and counterclockwise with depth over the summit plain. They also exhibit a fortnightly cycle in their amplitude, pointing to... Abstract Fine- and microstructure profiles collected over Fieberling Seamount at 32°26′N in the eastern North Pacific reveal a variety of intensified baroclinic motions driven by astronomical diurnal tides. The forced response consists of three phenomena coexisting in a layer 200 m thick above the summit plain: (i) an anticyclonic vortex cap of core relative vorticity − 0.5f, (ii) diurnal fluctuations of ±15 cm s−1 amplitude and 200-m vertical wavelength, and (iii) turbulence levels corresponding to an eddy diffusivity κe ≅ 10 × 10−4 m2 s−1. The vortex cannot be explained by Taylor–Proudman dynamics because of its − 0.3fN2 negative potential vorticity anomaly. The ±0.3f fortnightly cycle in the vortex’s strength suggests that it is at least partially maintained against dissipative erosion by tidal rectification. The diurnal motions are slightly subinertial, turning clockwise in time and counterclockwise with depth over the summit plain. They also exhibit a fortnightly cycle in their amplitude, pointing to...