Abstract
Allometry refers to the relationship between the size of a trait and that of the whole body of an organism. Pioneering observations by Otto Snell and further elucidation by D'Arcy Thompson set the stage for its integration into Huxley's explanation of constant relative growth that epitomizes through the formula of simple allometry. The traditional method to identify such a model conforms to a regression protocol fitted in the direct scales of data. It involves Huxley's formula-systematic part and a lognormally distributed multiplicative error term. In many instances of allometric examination, the predictive strength of this paradigm is unsuitable. Established approaches to improve fit enhance the complexity of the systematic relationship while keeping the go-along normality-borne error. These extensions followed Huxley's idea that considering a biphasic allometric pattern could be necessary. However, for present data composing 10 410 pairs of measurements of individual eelgrass leaf dry weight and area, a fit relying on a biphasic systematic term and multiplicative lognormal errors barely improved correspondence measure values while maintaining a heavy tails problem. Moreover, the biphasic form and multiplicative-lognormal-mixture errors did not provide complete fit dependability either. However, updating the outline of such an error term to allow heteroscedasticity to occur in a piecewise-like mode finally produced overall fit consistency. Our results demonstrate that when attempting to achieve fit quality improvement in a Huxley's model-based multiplicative error scheme, allowing for a complex allometry form for the systematic part, a non-normal distribution-driven error term and a composite of uneven patterns to describe the heteroscedastic outline could be essential.