Abstract Migratory species worldwide face escalating anthropogenic pressures, yet effective conservation requires transboundary strategies across their ranges. This is particularly evident in the East Asian‐Australasian Flyway (EAAF), a region vital for migratory waterbirds and home to a third of the global human population. Despite its ecological importance and the numerous threats impacting waterbird populations, a systematic, evidence‐based assessment of conservation actions is lacking. We investigated the conservation actions implemented by reserve managers in the EAAF, focusing on their perceived threats and associated management strategies. We then compared these practitioner‐driven priorities with the scientific evidence available in the conservation evidence (CE), using a modified pressure–state–response (PSR) framework to structure the linkage between implemented actions and evidence. This comparison allowed us to identify potential gaps between conservation practice and scientific knowledge, highlighting key research areas for improved, evidence‐based species conservation along the flyway. Our results revealed discrepancies between perceived threats and the evidence in the CE to support management actions. Habitat loss and human disturbance were prioritized by the reserve managers, but evidence for the effectiveness of some management practices was limited. Biological invasions were a lower priority for managers, despite there is a comparable evidence base for justifying the action. This indicates a mismatch between research focus and on‐the‐ground needs. Furthermore, the existing CE database has limited evidence specific to the EAAF. Synthesis and application : The modified PSR framework proved valuable for assessing conservation effectiveness and identifying research gaps for waterbirds in the EAAF. Recognizing similar threats to other migratory species globally, we urge action to: (1) prioritize regionally relevant research validating frontline conservation actions, (2) enhance communication between researchers and practitioners and (3) expand evidence databases with relevant spatial and taxonomic representation. Implementing these steps will strengthen the evidence base, better align research with on‐the‐ground needs and improve the long‐term prospects for migratory species in Asia.
Ng et al. (Wed,) studied this question.