Final answer:
A small forest typically has greater species diversity than a large field of corn because forests provide varied habitats and can sustain more complex communities, whereas monocultures such as cornfields are less conducive to biodiversity.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering which type of habitat would have greater species diversity, a small forest or a large field of corn, studies indicate that more diverse habitats such as forests tend to have higher species richness compared to monoculture agricultural fields like cornfields. Forests provide a variety of microhabitats and complex ecological niches that support a wide array of species. In contrast, the uniformity of agricultural landscapes, particularly intense agriculture, tends to reduce the conservation potential and leads to a decrease in native species diversity.
Research has found that large remnants of intact forest habitat harbor considerable species richness and that the presence of native vegetation patches in human-dominated landscapes can aid in species persistence. Furthermore, habitat size is a significant factor for species richness, with larger areas supporting a broader diversity of species due to a greater diversity of habitats, larger populations thereby reducing the risk of species losing viable populations, and a larger sample of the original habitat increasing the odds of including more species.
In summary, a small forest would generally have greater species diversity than a large field of corn due to the variety of habitats it includes and its ability to support a more complex ecological community.