Conservation research is less often applied in practice than is desirable for the optimization of conservation outcomes. We evaluated this conservation research–practice gap for a threatened passerine, Dupont's lark Chersophilus duponti. We reviewed the literature and classified the conservation interventions proposed by scientists as regulation and legislation, monitoring and research, or management. We sent a questionnaire to managers responsible for species conservation, to gather information about the reasons for implementing, or not, each conservation intervention. We found 16 conservation interventions proposed in the literature, of which 13 (81.2%) had been applied by managers at least once. We found a disparity between the frequency of scientific recommendations and the actions implemented by managers: some measures with high scientific consensus were rarely adopted, whereas approaches less frequently proposed by scientists were more often implemented by managers. Regulatory and monitoring/research interventions were applied more often than management interventions, probably because of legal obligations. Management interventions were less frequently implemented, mainly because of time and budget limitations. There was a negative correlation between the number of interventions implemented and the population trend of the species in each region, which suggests that conservation interventions were more commonly implemented when the species was facing local extinction. Our results indicate a mismatch between science and practice for the conservation of Dupont's lark, the reasons for which seem to be diverse and include factors such as financial and time limitations, legal obstacles and managers' perception of extinction risk. An iterative dialogue needs to be initiated between scientists and managers to evaluate the efficacy of interventions implemented, and facilitate evidence-based conservation.