Safety isn't the issue for canopies. Doesn't matter whether if the canopy is one-piece or two-piece, as soon as the bird strikes, it will break. That's a golden rule. Unless you put tank armour on the canopy, it won't be much good.
Plus, who said two-piece canopies are stronger? Think of the canopy as an arched bridge. Do you guys think a half arch is stronger or a full arch is stronger?
And as for F-2 being a low altitude fighter, that's a joke. Even low flying fighters fly at least few hundred meters above the ground/sea level, that is much higher than most birds would fly at. The only time they descend to low altitude is during attack maneuvers or landings. Do you guys really think that a highly trained pilot, worth about 25-50 million dollars, would be stupid enough to not spot a group of birds before making the maneuver? It is a common sense, most bird strikes occur at takeoff and landing. These are almost impossible to avoid for pilots and they are not in their control.
In conclusion, there is no strong proof that single piece canopies are stronger, and even if they are, how often would they be hit? Higher probability than normal planes?
The bridge analogy doesn't work in this case. An arch bridge is strong when the dead load or live load is acting vertically down due to gravity at a gradual rate. A bird strike comes horizontally impacting kinetic energy at immense speed (due to the fighter moving towards the bird). Stationary structural analysis is completely different to material structural analysis design.